nutritional value of rapeseed meal...karthik masagounder, kiran doranalli, markus wiltafsky &...

Nutritional value of rapeseed meal

Karthik Masagounder, Kiran Doranalli,

Markus Wiltafsky & Girish Channarayapatna,

Evonik Industries, Singapore

Outline

Introduction & Objectives

Methods

Results

Nutrient content (Amino acid content / proximate / energy)

Glucosinolates – content & heat treatment

Conclusion

feed additives - amino acids and more. |

IntroductionCommon species

Species Common name

Brassica juncea Indian mustard

B. nigra Black mustard

B. rapa / B. campestris

Indian rape / Polish rapeseed / Brown/Yellow sarson

B. napus Rapeseed /canola


• Mustard is more heat and drought tolerant than canola

• Canola: Canada + ola (Oil)• 00-rapeseed (<30 µmol/g glucosinolate in meal;

<2% erucic acid in oil)

Introduction Production of RSM vs. SBM, India


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

10

00

MT

Year

SBMRSM

� India is the third largest producer of RSM globally, after China & Canada


0

10000

20000

30000

40000

Pri

ce

, IN

R /

kg

SBM RSM

Introduction Price trend of RSM vs. SBM, India

Objectives

� Determine the content of essential amino acids (EAA) and proximate nutrients of Indian origin RSM samples collected during 2013.

� Estimate metabolisable energy (ME) content of RSM for poultry using prediction equation based on proximate nutrients

� Determine total glucosinolate contents of Indian RSM samples


Methods

Amino acids – NIR and wet chemistry (HPLC): n = 3073 samples

Proximate nutrients – NIR: n = 1743 samples

Metabolic energy – Rostagno equation; n = 1743 samples

Glucosinolates – wet chemistry (GC); n = 29 samples


Outline

Introduction & Objectives

Methods

Results

Nutrient content (Amino acid content / proximate / energy)

Glucosinolates – content & heat treatment

Conclusion


CP & Amino acid levels2013 vs. Book value

RSM88% DM

2013(n = 3073)

AMINODat 4.0(n=28)

CP 37.09 37.20

LYS 1.76 1.73

MET 0.69 0.68

M+C 1.64 1.64

THR 1.49 1.45

TRP 0.50 0.53

ARG 2.32 2.42

ILE 1.43 1.41

LEU 2.48 2.48

VAL 1.81 1.78

HIS 1.01 1.00

PHE 1.46 1.46

Mean value

CP & Amino acid levels2013 vs. Book value

RSM,88% DM

2013(n = 3073)

AMINODat 4.0(n=28)

2013(n = 3073)

AMINODat 4.0(n=28)

CP 28.93 - 39.62 34.30 - 39.10 1.90 3.50

LYS 1.27 - 2.05 1.51 - 1.97 3.99 6.60

MET 0.52 - 0.76 0.62 - 0.73 3.78 4.30

M+C 1.31 - 1.76 1.45 - 1.75 2.66 4.50

THR 1.13 - 1.63 1.32 - 1.53 2.12 3.20

TRP 0.41 - 0.56 0.51 - 0.55 2.93 3.10

ARG 1.79 - 2.62 2.10 - 2.63 3.90 4.80

ILE 1.12 - 1.53 1.29 - 1.51 2.19 3.90

LEU 1.92 - 2.68 2.25 - 2.63 1.97 3.60

VAL 1.39 - 1.95 1.64 - 1.88 2.25 3.50

HIS 0.77 - 1.14 0.91 - 1.08 3.58 4.30

PHE 1.14 - 1.57 1.30 - 1.56 2.23 4.10

Range CV

CP-AA relationshipPoor fit


y = 0.04x + 0.33R² = 0.15

1

1.3

1.6

1.9

2.2

28 31 34 37 40

Lys

%

CP %

y = 0.01x + 0.33R² = 0.125

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

28 31 34 37 40

Me

t %

CP %

y = 0.05x - 0.02R² = 0.52

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

28 31 34 37 40

M+

C %

CP %

y = 0.02x + 0.72R² = 0.21

1.00

1.15

1.30

1.45

1.60

1.75

25 28 31 34 37 40

Th

r %

CP %

AA is not always related to CP


1.73

1.74

1.75

1.76

1.77

1.78

36.0

36.5

37.0

37.5

38.0

2010 2011 2012 2013

Lys,

%

CP,

%

CP

Lys

CP & Amino acid levelsRSM vs. SBM

88% DMRSM

(n= 3073)SBM

(n=5660)

CP 37.09 47.33

LYS 1.76 2.91

MET 0.69 0.62

M+C 1.64 1.29

THR 1.49 1.81

TRP 0.50 0.62

ARG 2.32 3.53

ILE 1.43 2.11

LEU 2.48 3.57

VAL 1.81 2.2

HIS 1.01 1.26

PHE 1.46 2.40

Amino acid content, SID basisComparisons with other raw material

2.62

1.41

1.02

1.58

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

SBM RSM CSM MBM

SID

, L

ys %

1.11

1.31

0.93

0.63

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

SBM RSM CSM MBM

SID

, M

+C

%

0.56 0.58

0.450.40

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

SBM RSM CSM MBM

SID

, M

et

%

1.54

1.090.95

0.81

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

SBM RSM CSM MBM

SID

, T

hr

%

SBM, n = 5660RSM, n = 3073CSM, n = 462MBM, n = 626

Proximate nutrientsRSM vs. SBM

SBM(n = 5617)

RSM(n = 1743)

Moisture % 12 12

CP % 47.30 ± 0.72 37.01 ± 0.71

Crude Fat % 1.92 ± 0.54 2.76 ± 0.34

Ash % 7.19 ± 0.50 6.98 ± 0.32

Crude Fiber % 5.25 ± 1.16 10.45 ± 0.43

NFE % 26.34 ± 1.28 30.77 ± 0.86


Metabolizable Energy, poultryRSM vs. others


2293

1743

26992843

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

SBM RSM CSM MBM

ME

, k

ca

l /

kg

Antinutritional factors


Glucosinolates

Tannins

SinapinePhytic acid

Erucic acid

Glucosinolates

� 140 different Glucosinolates

� 27 are known in rapeseed

Plant: Part of the defence system

Animals: Interfere with iodine uptake and the sythesis of Thyroid hormones T3 and T4, leading to hypothyroidism and enlargement of the thyroid gland (goitre).

� growth retardation

� impaired liver and kidney functions

� impaired reproductive activity


RSM vs. Mustard mealGlucosinolate content

Glucosinolates(g/kg)

RSM(n = 29)

Mustard meal ( n =13)

Gluconasturtiin 0.146 0.159

Glucoraphanin 0.055 0.194

Progoitrin 0.093 0.068

Glucotropaeolin 0.003 0.003

Glucobrassicin 0.003 0.046

Sinigrin 3.618 2.950

Epiprogoitrin 0.012 0.012

Glucoiberin 0.170 0.021

Glucoerucin 0.012 0.032

Gluconapin 15.995 20.303

Sum ofglucosinolates,

20.10 23.78

mmol/kg 43.32 51.25

0

10

20

30

40

0 10 20 30 40

Glu

co

sin

ola

te,

g

/ k

g

Rapeseed meal Mustard meal

RSM: Glucosinolate content


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 20 40 60 80

Glu

co

ino

late

, g

/ k

g

Canada

China

Europe

India

RSM in broiler diets



700

710

720

730

740

750

1500

1700

1900

2100

SBM

(40/34%)

MOC_low

(25/21%)

MOC_low

(54/47%)

MOC_high

(22/19%)

MOC_high

(44/38%)

Re

ad

y-t

o-c

oo

k y

ield

, g

We

igh

t g

ain

, g

Weight gain, g RTC yield

FCR 1.76 1.73 1.71 1.8 1.91

1-21/22-42 d

RSM in broiler diets

Rama Rao et al. 2004

Glucosinolates can be destroyed via heating

Spragg and Mailer, 2007; AOF/Pork CRC report

Toasting has the biggest impact on Glucosinolate levelsIn this example desolventization/toasting causes about 2/3 of the total reduction!


LCA’s of AA’s

Porcessing is needed to reduce the

Glucosinolates.

Can we overdo it?

Toasting is the most harmfull process step

0

2

-1

1

-5-4

0

1

-3

-6

-9-8

0

0-1

0

-13

-9

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

Fla

ked

Cooked

Expelle

d

Extr

acte

d

Desolv

entized/toaste

d

Dried

Change in %

rela

tive t

o F

laked r

apeseed

Wayne, PhD-Thesis , 2001Effect of processing rapeseed to rapeseed meal on amino acids

Arg Cys Lys

Linear loss of total Lys, Cys and Arg in RSM due to heating at 110 C

y = -0.0042x + 1.8018

R² = 0.9591

1.50

1.55

1.60

1.65

1.70

1.75

1.80

1.85

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Lys,

%

Time, min

RSM: Lys

110 C Linear (110 C)

y = -0.0015x + 0.7495

R² = 0.9389

0.64

0.66

0.68

0.70

0.72

0.74

0.76

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Cy

s, %

Time, min

RSM: Cys


y = -0.0035x + 1.989

R² = 0.9148

1.75

1.80

1.85

1.90

1.95

2.00

2.05

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Arg

, %

Time, min

RSM: Arg


Legal constraints for glucosinolates in Europe

Rapeseed meal (88% DM): max 4.00 g/kg = 8.6 mmol/kg

Finished Feed (88% DM):

Piglets: max 0.15 g/kg = 0.32 mmol/kg

Pig + Poultry: max 0.50 g/kg = 1.07 mmol/kg


Max dietary inclusion rate of 00-RSM

Piglets Pig+Poultry3.75 % 12.50 %

Max dietary inclusion rate of Indian-RSM (20 g/kg)

Piglets Pig+Poultry0.75 % 2.50 %

Summary

� RSM vs. SBM:

Cheaper and higher Met (0.07%) & M+C (0.35%) levels

Higher crude fiber (5%) and Lower CP (10%) & ME (550 kcal/kg: 2300 v 1750)

� Poor relationship between CP and EAA – regression equation not possible

� High glucosinoate contents

RSM: 20 g/kg Mustard meal: 23.78 g/kg

� Heat processing helps reduce glucosinolate content, but overprocessing reduces Lys, Arg and Cys

- A balance between Glucosinolates and heat-damage needs to be found

� Inclusion rate of RSM as per European regulation, 2.5%

nutritional value of rapeseed meal...karthik masagounder, kiran doranalli, markus wiltafsky &...

Documents