Post on 26-Apr-2020
Oilseed Meal Processing and Feeding Trials
William Gibbons
Michael Brown, Jill Anderson
South Dakota State University
Projects
• Oilseed meal processing
• Aquaculture trials
• Dairy cattle trials
Oilseed Meal Processing
• Reduce glucosinolates
• Reduce oligosaccharides, fiber, pectin
• Increase protein and limiting amino acids
• Allow for increased feeding rates and animal performance
• Hypothesis: A fungal consortium
will metabolize undesirable
components into protein rich
cell mass
50% (dm) Hexane Extracted Canola Meal
FungalCulture ProteinMaximum(%dw)
ProteinIncrease(%dw)
HEControl 36.1±0.8 A.pullulans(NRRL-58522) 41.0±1.8 13.6±4.8A.pullulans(NRRL-42023) 39.7±0.5 10.1±1.5A.pullulans(NRRL-Y-2311-1) 41.3±0.2 14.5±0.6P.kudriavzevii 39.7±0.1 10.0±0.2T.reesei(NRRL-3653) 44.4±1.7 23.1±4.7F.venenatum(NRRL-26139) 40.2±2.1 11.3±5.8M.circinelloides 40.7±0.8 12.9±2.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Fungal Cultures
Protein (% dw) Residual Sugars (% w/w)
50% (dm) Cold Pressed Canola Meal
FungalCulture ProteinMaximum(%dw)
ProteinIncrease(%dw)
CPControl 38.6±0.7 A.pullulans(NRRL-58522) 45.2±0.7 16.9±1.9A.pullulans(NRRL-42023) 43.7±1.6 13.2±4.1A.pullulans(NRRL-Y-2311-1) 44.6±0.2 15.4±0.6P.kudriavzevii 42.2±0.1 9.2±0.3T.reesei(NRRL-3653) 47.5±1.5 22.9±3.9F.venenatum(NRRL-26139) 44.4±1.9 14.8±4.9M.circinelloides 43.0±1.4 11.4±3.6
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Fungal Cultures
Protein (% dw) Residual Sugars (% w/w)
Total Glucosinolate Reduction in Canola Meal
Glucosinolates HexaneExtracted ColdPressed
FungalCulture TotalGLS(mg/g) Reduction(%)
TotalGLS(mg/g) Reduction(%)
RawMeal 17.4±0.6 24.7±1.0
ProcessControl 6.0±0.5 65.5±2.7 12.2±0.3 50.7±1.3A.pullulans(NRRL-58522) 1.7±0.4 90.3±2.2 1.2±0.9 95.2±3.7
A.pullulans(NRRL-42023) 1.0±0.5 94.5±3.1 6.1±5.9 75.5±23.9
A.pullulans(NRRL-Y-2311-1) 1.6±0.4 90.9±2.2 4.3±1.1 82.4±4.4P.kudriavzevii 5.4±0.4 69.0±2.5 11.7±0.3 52.7±1.3
T.reesei(NRRL-3653) 0.4±0.0 97.9±0.2 1.0±0.2 95.9±0.7
F.venenatum(NRRL-26139) 2.3±0.7 86.8±3.7 4.4±1.7 82.1±6.7M.circinelloides 4.2±0.4 75.9±2.2 10.4±1.1 58.1±4.4
Autoclaving reduced GLS by 50-66%Microbial conversion reduced GLS by 53-98%
Conclusions
• Greatest improvement in canola meal quality• T. reesei• A. pullulans (NRRL-58522)• A. pullulans (Y-2311-1)
• Submerged incubation has shown similar results• Future work
• Pretreatment and enzyme hydrolysis• Nitrogen supplementation• Expanding to carinata and camelina meals
Preliminary Carinata and CamelinaConversion Trials
Treatment Carinata Camelina
Protein (%) GSL (mg/g) Protein (%) GSL (mg/g)
Cold Pressed 45.35 10.1 42.44 13.0
Cold Pressed & MicrobiallyConverted
49.11 3.0 40.86 0.0
Cold Pressed & Extruded 45.14 9.5 43.07 13.3
Cold Pressed, Extruded, & Microbially Converted
49.69 2.3 49.15 1.0
Microbial conversion via A. pullulans
Preliminary Carinata and CamelinaConversion Trials
Treatment Carinata Camelina
Protein (%) GSL (mg/g) Protein (%) GSL (mg/g)
Solvent Extracted 48.25 9.4 47.08 13.5
Solvent Extracted& Microbially Converted
56.92 1.4 53.08 0.4
Solvent Extracted& Extruded
48.96 8.4 46.58 11.7
Solvent Extracted, Extruded, & Microbially Converted
55.73 2.3 53.63 0.2
Microbial conversion via A. pullulans
Aquafeed Development & Fish Performance Trials
Aquaculture Trials
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
19501952195419561958196019621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006200820102012
Pro
du
ctio
n (
mill
ion
to
n)
Year
Wild Catch Farmed Fish
FAO (Fisheries and Aquaculture Department). 2012. State of world fisheries and aquaculture 2012. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Process effects on carinata composition
CP = cold pressed, EX= extruded, SE = solvent extraction, FE = microbial conversion
Process DM
(%)
Crude
Protein
(%)
Crude
Lipid (%)
Crude
Fiber
(%)
Crude
Ash (%)
NFE
(%)
Total
Glucosinolate
(µMoles/g)
CP 93.6 45.4 7.83 6.5 7.3 26.6 23.7
CP, EX 93.8 45.1 7.7 6.8 7.3 26.9 22.3
CP, SE 93.5 48.2 0.5 6.4 7.8 30.6 22.2
CP, EX, SE 87.5 49.0 0.6 7.1 7.9 22.9 19.7
CP, FE 92.7 49.1 6.9 13.3 4.4 19.0 7.1
CP, EX, FE 94.8 49.7 12.1 13.2 4.3 15.5 5.5
CP, SE, FE 93.6 56.9 0.6 14.0 5.1 12.6 3.4
CP, EX, SE, FE 95.1 55.7 0.5 12.7 4.9 21.3 5.5
Process effects on camelina composition
CP = cold pressed, EX= extruded, SE = solvent extraction, FE = microbial conversion
Process DM
(%)
Crude
Protein
(%)
Crude
Lipid (%)
Crude
Fiber
(%)
Crude
Ash (%)
NFE
(%)
Total
Glucosinolate
(µMoles/g)
CP 93.6 42.4 7.52 12.0 5.9 25.7 24.9
CP, EX 93.6 43.1 7.33 13.9 5.9 23.4 25.5
CP, SE 93.7 47.1 0.11 12.6 6.5 27.5 25.9
CP, EX, SE 95.1 46.6 0.28 12.8 6.5 28.9 22.5
CP, FE 93.0 40.9 8.16 22.3 3.2 18.5 0.0
CP, EX, FE 92.0 49.2 5.76 18.9 4.0 14.2 0.7
CP, SE, FE 93.2 53.1 0.66 18.5 4.6 16.5 0.4
CP, EX, SE, FE 94.2 53.6 1.48 22.2 5.9 11.1 0.3
Digestibility & palatability of processed carinataand camelina in rainbow trout
CP = coldpress, EX= extruded, SE = solvent extraction, FE = microbial conversion
Carinata Camelina
Diet Treatment
Energy
Digestibility
(%)
Protein
Digestibility
(%)
Palatability
(%)
Energy
Digestibility
(%)
Protein
Digestibility
(%)
Palatability
(%)
CP 52.9 83.0 1.40 38.7 66.4 1.49
CP, EX 65.9 89.7 1.33 52.4 76.2 1.75
CP, SE 65.9 92.5 1.82 21.3 60.6 1.72
CP, EX, SE 50.2 86.3 1.87 52.8 86.7 1.67
CP, FE 66.6 82.7 1.47 75.4 86.6 1.39
CP, EX, FE 58.8 74.8 1.61 52.5 69.1 1.50
CP, SE, FE 54.4 79.6 1.60 57.7 76.6 1.67
CP, EX, SE, FE 60.7 87.7 1.65 63.7 78.4 1.83
Culture Investigations
Completed Palatability & digestibility of processed meals in rainbow trout
Improved with extraction and conversion
Digestibility of processed meals in hybrid striped bass (completing trace marker analysis)
Current studies• Determining the glucosinolate tolerance limit in hybrid striped bass
– Thyroxine and deiodinase responses, organosomatic indices, and nonspecific immune responses
Upcoming studies• Initiate long-term performance trials
– Growth, feed conversion, histology, and organosomatic responses
• Rainbow trout – April 2016
• Hybrid striped bass – August 2016
• Complete palatability trials for hybrid striped bass
– Summer 2016
• Physiological responses of fish to various fish-meal replacement inclusion levels of processed meals
– Summer 2016
Carinata meal: Potential for Dairy Cattle
• Three research projects:
– Ensiling with forage to decrease glucosinolates
– In-situ rumen degradation and in-vitro intestinal digestibility
– Effects of carinata meal on growth and reproductive development of peripuberal dairy heifers
Ensiling Carinata Meal with Forage to Decrease Glucosinolates
• Two trials: Alfalfa Haylage and Corn Silage
• Three treatments (DM basis)
– 0:100 , 25:75, and 50:50 Carinata meal : Forage
• Ensiled for 0, 7, 21, or 60 days (4 reps/trt)
• Ensiling carinata meal with forage decreased glucosinolate levels
• Silage fermentation (data not shown) was decreased at higher carinata meal inclusion, but still within normal range
Carinata : Alflalfa Haylage
Carinata : Corn Silage
Ruminal degradability and intestinal digestibility of carinata and camelina meals compare to other
protein sources
Rumen in situ (with 3 cannulated dairy cows) and intestinal in vitro on:
Camelina meal (Cam), Carinata meal (Car), Canola meal (Can), Linseed meal (LN), DDGS (DG), and Soybean meal (SBM)
Nutrient Composition
Item1 Cam Car Can DG LN SBM
DM, % 92.3 92.9 96.4 96.1 89.0 97.8
Cr. Prot 37.7 44.3 44.0 32.8 39.0 51.1
Fat 14.32 2.1 2.8 8.7 4.0 1.8
NDF 25.7 23.7 28.1 24.4 27.1 9.0
Ash 5.0 7.6 7.8 4.8 6.5 6.8
1 DM basis2 Cam (camelina meal) was cold-pressed; Car (carinata), Can (canola), LN (linseed), SBM (soybean meal) were solvent extracted
Crude Protein Degradation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
% C
PD
Rumen Incubation (h)
Camelina Meal
Canola Meal
Carinata Meal
DDGS
Linseed Meal
Soybean Meal
Crude protein degradability and digestibility
1Soluble CP; 2Potentially degradable CP; 3Undegradable CP; 4Rate of CP degradation; 5Ruminally degradable protein (RDP); 6Ruminally undegradable protein (RUP); 7Estimated intestinal digestible protein (IDP) after 12 h rumen incubation and pepsin-pancreatindigestion; 8Intestinally absorbable digestible protein (IADP) = Rumen undegradableprotein (RUP, % of CP) × intestinal CP digestion (% of RUP); 9 Total Digestible Protein (TDP) = RDP + IADP. abcd Values with unlike subscripts differ by P < 0.05 using Tukey’s Test.
• 24 heifers in RCBD experiment• Two treatment diets:• Carinata meal (Car) • Distillers dried grains (DDGS)
• Fed 16 weeks (6 to 11 months of age)• Used Calan gates to feed heifers
individually• Groups of six started on the
experiment by age and availability, • ¾ of heifers completed
Effects of carinata meal on growth, metabolic profile, and reproductive development of dairy heifers
(K
Ingredients, % DM1 Car DDGS
Hay 63.5 63.5
Ground corn 14.5 13.0
DDGS - 10.0
Carinata Meal 10.0 -
Soybean Meal 10.5 12.0
Vitamins and
Minerals
1.5 1.5
1Based on Dairy NRC software (2001)
Diet formulation – fed at 2.65% of Body Wt
Nutrient, % DM1 CRM DDG
DM, % Diet 85.5 86.0
Crude Protein 16.3 16.3
NDF (fiber) 47.7 49.3
Ether Extract 4.0 3.2
Non-fibrous Carbohydrates
29.3 28.9
ME, Mcal/kg DM 2.43 2.38
1Based on Dairy NRC software (2001)
Diet formulation – fed at 2.65% of Body Wt
Preliminary results
Item Car DDGS SEM P values
# of heifers 9 8 - -
Body weight, kg 267.2 265.4 1.61 0.22
ADG, kg/d 0.814 0.818 0.038 0.95
DM Intake , kg/d 6.50 6.54 0.174 0.86
Gain: feedkg of gain/ kg DMI
0.132 0.128 0.004 0.56
Conclusions (to date)
• Ensiling carinata with forages – Ensiling Car with forages decreased the sinigrin concentrations
– No major detriment to silage fermentation
• Camelina and carinata are highly degradable in the rumen – Comparable protein sources to SBM and linseed
meal (LN) for total digestibility
• Dairy heifers fed carinata meal– Preliminary results indicate that heifers fed
carinata meal have similar growth and feed efficiency as heifers fed DDGS
– ¾ of heifers completed
– Blood metabolites and laboratory work in-progress