Protein Quality and Metabolizable Energy of Sunflower and Rape Seed Meals
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Sunflower meal (SFM) contained lower CP than rape seed meal (RSM) and soybean meal (SBM; 28.7 vs. 37.8 and 46.3% DM) but higher CF (29.5 vs. 11.8 and 7.6% DM), RSM contained lower EE than SFM and SBM (1.0 vs. 5.4 and 7.9% DM) therefore it had lower gross energy content than the other two meals (4.5 vs. 4.8 and 5.1 kcal/g DM).
The digestibility trial was conducted in 4 artificial anus cocks and 4 normal cocks. It revealed that the true digestibility of most nutrients (DM, CP, EE, NFE and OM) in SBM were significantly higher than SFM and RSM. Artificial anus cocks showed higher digestibility of DM, CP, NFE and OM while that of CF was lower than the normal cocks. However that of EE had no significant difference.
True digestible energy (TDE) was found to be higher than ADE. True metabolizable energy (TME) was also higher than AME with regardless of chicken types. The energy value of SBM was significantly higher than SFM and RSM, The TME values of the 3 feedstuffs are 3.7 vs. 2.8 and 2.2 kcal/g DM, respectively.
Protein quality of SFM and RSM was evaluated using 80 heads of 7 days old chicks and 20 heads of 3 weeks old albino rats. Each kind of animals was divided into 4 dietary groups (including casein and N-free diets). It was found that RSM and SFM had similar protein quality. Their Protein effeciency ratio (PER) values were 1.4 vs. 1.0 and Net protein retention (NPR) were 2.9 vs. 2.9. These values determined in chicks were significantly higher than in rat (PER = 1.5 vs. 0,9 and NPR = 3.4 v. 2.3, respectively).
Article Details
References
วีระศักดิ์ สามารถ, สุชน ตั้งทวีวิพัฒน์ และบุญล้อม ชีวะอิสระกุล. 2542. การหาค่าการย่อยได้และ พลังงานใช้ประโยชน์ของกากทานตะวันในไก่ที่ทำท่อมูลเทียมและไก่ปกติ. ใน: รายงานการประชุมทางวิชาการ ครั้งที่ 37 สาขาสัตว์, หน้า 68-75, มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์, กรุงเทพฯ
A.0.A.C. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed., Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, D.C., USA.
Clandinin, D.R. and A.R. Robblee. 1950. The effects of methods of processing on the nutritional value of sunflower meal. Poultry Science, 29: 753.
Dale, N. 1997. Ingredient analysis table : 1997 edition. Feedstuffs Reference Issue, 69(30): 24-31.
Dalibard, P. and E. Paillard. 1995. Use of the digestibility amino acid concept in formulating diets for poultry. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 53(2):189-204.
Fuller M.F. 1988. Methods of protein evaluation for nonruminants. In: Feed Science. pp. 81-101.1st ed., E.R. Orskov,Rowerr Research Institute Greenburn Road, Buckburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB, Scotland.
Green, S. and T. Kiener. 1989. Digestibilities of nitrogen and amino acids in soya-bean, sunflower, meat and rapeseed meals measured with pig and poultry. Animal Production, 89(1):157-179.
Lee, K.H., G.H.Qi and J.S. Sim. 1995. Metabolizable energy and amino acid availability of full-fat seeds, meal and oils of flax and canola. Poultry Science, 74(8):1341-1348.
NRC (National Research Council). 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, 9th ed., National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. USA.
Rad, F.H. and K. Keshavarz. 1976. Evaluation of nutritional value of sunflower meal and possibility of substitution of sunflower meal for soybean meal in poultry diets. Poultry Science, 55(5):1757-1765.
Sibbald, I.R. 1977(a). The true metabolizable energy system. Part I: Advantages of T.M.E in poultry feed formulation. Feedstuffs, 49(42):21-22.
Sibbald, I.R. 1977(b). The true metabolizable energy system. Part II: Feedstuffs value and convention data. Feedstuffs, 49(43):23-24.
Zhang, Y. and C.M. Parsons. 1994. Effect of overprocessing on the nutritional quality of sunflower meal. Poultry Science, 73(3):436-442.