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
	
	
	
	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 
	µmol/g) Brassica 
	napus (genotype TERI-Uttam-Jawahar; RMLC)  and a mix of genotypes of high glucosinolate ((> 100 
	µmol/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 µmol/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 µmol/g; TERI-Uttam-Jawahar (TUJ)) and a mix of genotypes of 
	high glucosinolate Brassica juncea (>100 µmol/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
	× 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 µmol 
	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 (µmol/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 µmol/g concentrates, respectively | 
		
	 
	
	
	
	
	Soybean meal in control concentrate 
	mixture (SBMC) was completely substituted with either canola quality
	Brassica napus genotype (<20 µmol/g; TERI-Uttam-Jawahar (TUJ)) or a 
	mix of genotypes of Brassica juncea (>100 µmol/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 × 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 µmol/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 µmol/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 µmol/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 µmol/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 µmol/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 µmol 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 
	µmol/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
	
	 
	
		- 
		
		
		
		Feeding
	of 
		high
	glucosinolates 
		containing
	RMC 
		may
		reduce the 
		intake of 
		concentrate
		and subsequently 
		growth rate of calves. 
 
- 
		
		
		Digestibilities of DM, OM, NDF
		and ADF were
		lower
		in RMHC than in RMLC and SBMC,
		but were similar 
		between SBMC and RMLC. N
		balance was, however, similar 
	among treatments.   
- 
		
		
		Costlier
		conventional cakes 
		like SBMC 
		can
		be
		replaced completely 
		by canola 
		quality
	RMC such
		as Brassica napus var. TUJ as a
		protein
		source in the 
		diet of young calves without 
		affecting their 
		growth
		performance
		and
		apparent health, and 
		can
		be
		justified economically.
 
 
	 
	
	
	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