Open Access

Determination of ileal digestible and apparent metabolizable energy contents of expeller-extracted and solvent-extracted canola meals for broiler chickens by the regression method

SpringerPlus20165:693

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2325-z

Received: 19 November 2015

Accepted: 11 May 2016

Published: 23 May 2016

Abstract

The present study was conducted to determine ileal digestible energy (IDE), metabolizable energy (ME), and nitrogen-corrected ME (MEn) contents of expeller- (EECM) and solvent-extracted canola meal (SECM) for broiler chickens using the regression method. Dietary treatments consisted of a corn–soybean meal reference diet and four assay diets prepared by supplementing the reference diet with each of canola meals (EECM or SECM) at 100 or 200 g/kg, respectively, to partly replace the energy yielding sources in the reference diet. Birds received a standard starter diet from day 0 to 14 and the assay diets from day 14 to 21. On day 14, a total of 240 birds were grouped into eight blocks by body weight and randomly allocated to five dietary treatments in each block with six birds per cage in a randomized complete block design. Excreta samples were collected from day 18 to 20 and ileal digesta were collected on day 21. The IDE, ME, and MEn (kcal/kg DM) of EECM or SECM were derived from the regression of EECM- or SECM-associated IDE, ME and MEn intake (Y, kcal) against the intake of EECM or SECM (X, kg DM), respectively. Regression equations of IDE, ME and MEn for the EECM-substituted diet were Y = −21.2 + 3035X (r2 = 0.946), Y = −1.0 + 2807X (r2 = 0.884) and Y = −2.0 + 2679X (r2 = 0.902), respectively. The respective equations for the SECM diet were Y = 20.7 + 2881X (r2 = 0.962), Y = 27.2 + 2077X (r2 = 0.875) and Y = 24.7 + 2013X (r2 = 0.901). The slope for IDE did not differ between the EECM and SECM whereas the slopes for ME and MEn were greater (P < 0.05) for the EECM than for the SECM. These results indicate that the EECM might be a superior energy source for broiler chickens compared with the SECM when both canola meals are used to reduce the cost of feeding.

Keywords

Broiler chickens Expeller-extracted canola meal Ileal digestible energy Metabolizable energy

Background

Canola meal is a by-product of canola seed oil extraction and is a good source of essential amino acids for broiler chickens leading to its frequent use in poultry diet formulation as a protein source (Newkirk 2009). There are two extraction methods for obtaining canola oil from canola seed. Solvent extraction is the most common method and uses solvent to improve oil-extraction efficiency, resulting in a meal with <5 % residual oil. On the other hand, the expeller extraction is suggested to be less efficient for oil extraction because the oil is extracted only mechanically, thus leaving more oil (8–15 %) in the meal compared with solvent extraction method (Spragg and Mailer 2007). Moreover, it does not leave any solvent residues which would remain in the solvent-extracted meal. In addition, processing temperature and moisture contents also differ depending on extraction method. The processing conditions for expeller-extracted canola meal (EECM) are less in moisture (<12 % vs. 15–18 %) and higher in temperature (up to 160 °C vs. 95–115 °C) than for solvent-extracted canola meal (SECM), respectively (Newkirk 2009).

Processing conditions for canola oil extraction as well as residual oil in the meal can affect the nutritive values of canola meal (Woyengo et al. 2010b; Khajali and Slominski 2012). It has been reported that EECM had greater amino acid (AA) digestibility and metabolizable energy (ME) than SECM fed to growing pigs (Woyengo et al. 2010a; Maison and Stein 2014). However, there is a dearth of studies which evaluated the nutritive values of EECM for broilers. Woyengo et al. (2010b) reported that doubly extracted EECM compared with SECM fed to broilers had more standardized ileal digestible AA and N-corrected apparent ME (AMEn) by using the difference method. Toghyani et al. (2014) reported that ileal digestible energy (IDE), apparent ME (AME), and AMEn values vary depending on processing conditions and chemical composition of EECM fed to broilers. In view of the dearth of data, the objective of the present study was to determine IDE, ME and MEn of single-extracted EECM and SECM fed to broiler chickens using the regression method.

Methods

All protocols for the experiment were reviewed and approved by the Purdue University Animal Care and Use Committee.

Animals and experimental diets

Day-old male broiler chicks of the Ross 308 (Aviagen, Huntsville, AL, USA) strain were obtained from a local hatchery, tagged with identification numbers, and housed in electrically heated battery cages (model SB 4 T, Alternative Design Manufacturing, Siloam Springs, AR, USA) in an environmentally controlled room. Battery brooder temperatures from day 0 to 7 and day 7–14 were kept at 35 and 32 °C, respectively. All birds received a mash standard broiler starter diet from day 0 to 14 (Table 1). On day 14, the birds were weighed individually and 240 birds were grouped into eight blocks by body weight and randomly allocated to five dietary treatments in each block with six birds per cage in a randomized complete block design using the Experimental Animal Allotment Program of Kim and Lindemann (2007). Birds were provided ad libitum access to water and experimental diets from day 14 to 21 and the battery brooder temperatures were maintained at 27 °C.
Table 1

Ingredient composition of starter diet fed from d 0 to 14

Item

Ingredients (g/kg)

 

 Corn

542.2

 Soybean meal

360.0

 Soybean oil

50.0

 Monocalcium phosphate

16.5

 Limestone

16.5

 Salt

4.0

 Vitamin-mineral premixa

3.0

 dl-Methionine

3.8

 l-Threonine

1.1

 l-Lysine HCl

2.9

 Total

1000

Calculated nutrients and energy

 Crude protein (g/kg)

226.4

 Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg)

3143

 Calcium (g/kg)

9.5

 Phosphorus (g/kg)

7.2

 Non-phytate phosphorus (g/kg)

4.7

Total indispensable amino acids (g/kg)

 Arginine

14.6

 Histidine

5.9

 Isoleucine

9.2

 Leucine

18.9

 Lysine

14.3

 Methionine

8.3

 Methionine + Cysteine

10.8

 Phenylalanine

10.5

 Phenylalanine + Tyrosine

19.1

 Threonine

8.3

 Tryptophan

3.0

 Valine

10.2

aSupplied the following per kilogram of diet: vitamin A, 5484 IU; vitamin D3, 2643 ICU; vitamin E, 11 IU; menadione sodium bisulfite, 4.38 mg; riboflavin, 5.49 mg; d-pantothenic acid, 11 mg; niacin, 44.1 mg; choline chloride, 771 mg; vitamin B12, 13.2 µg; biotin, 55.2 µg; thiamine mononitrate, 2.2 mg; folic acid, 990 µg; pyridoxine hydrochloride, 3.3 mg; I, 1.11 mg; Mn, 66.06 mg; Cu, 4.44 mg; Fe, 44.1 mg; Zn, 44.1 mg; Se, 300 µg

The analyzed chemical composition of EECM and SECM used in the present study are presented in Table 2. Dietary treatments consisted of a corn-SBM reference diet and four assay diets. In the reference diet (Table 3), corn, SBM, corn starch, and soybean oil were used as energy yielding sources. The four assay diets were prepared by supplementing the reference diet with each of canola meals (EECM or SECM) at 100 or 200 g/kg, respectively, to partly replace the energy yielding sources in the reference diet. The ratio of the energy yielding sources remained constant in all treatments to enable determination of the energy value of expeller extracted and solvent extracted canola meals by the regression method (Kong and Adeola 2014).
Table 2

Analyzed composition (on a DM basis) of the expeller-extracted canola meal (EECM) and solvent-extracted canola meal (SECM) used in the study

Item

EECM

SECM

DM (g/kg)

846.3

911.8

Gross energy (kcal/kg)

5798

4895

Crude protein (N × 6.25) (g/kg)

398.7

402.0

Ether extract (g/kg)

138.7

24.3

Crude fiber (g/kg)

80.2

83.0

Neutral detergent fiber (g/kg)

233.8

265.3

Acid detergent fiber (g/kg)

181.4

189.5

Calcium (g/kg)

6.5

7.9

Phosphorus (g/kg)

12.4

11.7

Indispensable amino acid (g/kg)

  

 Arginine

25.6

25.1

 Histidine

11.1

10.9

 Isoleucine

17.0

16.3

 Leucine

29.8

28.8

 Lysine

24.0

23.8

 Methionine

8.0

7.8

 Phenylalanine

16.5

16.1

 Threonine

16.9

16.3

 Tryptophan

5.6

5.2

 Valine

22.3

21.5

Dispensable amino acid (g/kg)

  

 Alanine

19.1

18.3

 Aspartic acid

28.2

27.3

 Cysteine

10.4

10.2

 Glutamic acid

70.3

69.2

 Glycine

21.4

20.3

 Methionine

8.0

7.8

 Proline

25.6

26.8

 Serine

14.7

14.4

 Taurine

0.6

0.7

 Tyrosine

11.5

11.1

Values presented are from 1 replicate analysis for amino acids and means of duplicate analyses for the other nutrients

Table 3

Ingredient composition of experimental diets

Item

Reference diet

EECM (g/kg)

SECM (g/kg)

100

200

100

200

Ingredients (g/kg)

     

 Corn

503.4

450.5

397.7

450.5

397.7

 Soybean meal

382

341.9

301.8

341.9

301.8

 Soybean oil

40

35.8

31.6

35.8

31.6

 Monocalcium phosphate

17.5

17.5

17.5

17.5

17.5

 Limestone

14

14

14

14

14

 Salt

4

4

4

4

4

 Chromic oxide premixa

25

25

25

25

25

 Vitamin-mineral premixb

3

3

3

3

3

 dl-Methionine

3

3

3

3

3

 l-Lysine HCl

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

 Cornstarch

7

4.2

1.3

4.2

1.3

 EECM

0

100

200

0

0

 SECM

0

0

0

100

200

 Total

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

Analyzed nutrients and energy

     

 Gross energy (kcal/kg)

4070

4183

4254

4147

4161

 Crude protein (N × 6.25) (g/kg)

221.1

247.3

256.9

234.2

252.1

EECM expeller-extracted canola meal, SECM solvent-extracted canola meal

aPrepared as 1 g of chromic oxide mixed with 4 g of cornstarch

bSupplied the following per kilogram of diet: vitamin A, 5484 IU; vitamin D3, 2643 ICU; vitamin E, 11 IU; menadione sodium bisulfite, 4.38 mg; riboflavin, 5.49 mg; d-pantothenic acid, 11 mg; niacin, 44.1 mg; choline chloride, 771 mg; vitamin B12, 13.2 µg; biotin, 55.2 µg; thiamine mononitrate, 2.2 mg; folic acid, 990 µg; pyridoxine hydrochloride, 3.3 mg; I, 1.11 mg; Mn, 66.06 mg; Cu, 4.44 mg; Fe, 44.1 mg; Zn, 44.1 mg; Se, 300 µg

Sample collection and chemical analyses

Excreta samples were collected twice daily from day 18 to 20. During collection, waxed paper was placed in trays under the cages, and excreta on the paper were collected. The excreta samples were pooled per cage over the 2 days and stored in a freezer at −20 °C. On day 21, all birds were euthanized by asphyxiation with carbon dioxide and ileal digesta were collected from the distal two-thirds of ileum by gently rinsing with distilled water. The collected ileal digesta from six birds within a cage were pooled and stored in the freezer at −20 °C.

At the completion of the experiment, ileal digesta and excreta samples were thawed and placed in a forced-air oven at 55 °C for 96 h and ground using a mill grinder (Retsch ZM 100, Retsch GmbH & Co., Haan, Germany). Gross energy (GE) of diets, excreta and ileal digesta samples was determined in adiabatic bomb calorimeter (Parr 1261, Parr Instruments Co., Moline, IL, USA) using benzoic acid as a calibration standard. Dry matter analysis of samples was conducted by drying the samples in a drying oven at 105 °C for 24 h (method 934.01; AOAC 2005). Nitrogen contents of the diets, excreta, and ileal digesta were determined using the combustion method (Model FP2000, Leco Corp., St. Joseph, MI) with EDTA as a calibration standard. Chromium concentrations in the diets, ileal, and excreta samples were determined using the method of Fenton and Fenton (1979).

Calculations

The coefficients of ileal digestibility and metabolizability of DM, N and energy in the experimental diets were calculated using the index method with chromic oxide as an indigestible index (Kong and Adeola 2014). The IDE and AME contents of experimental diets were then calculated as the product of respective coefficients and the gross energy (kcal/kg). The AME was corrected to zero N retention using the factor of 8.22 kcal/g of N (Hill and Anderson 1958). The IDE, ME or MEn of the test ingredients (SECM and EECM) were calculated using the regression method described in the study by Adeola and Ileleji (2009). Gross energy of the assay diets was corrected for non-energy yielding fractions and then the substitution rates of the canola meals were corrected for energy contributions of energy-yielding ingredients and canola meals in the assay diet. The energy contribution-corrected substitution rate was multiplied with dietary IDE, ME or MEn intake to determine EECM- or SECM-associated corresponding energy intake (kcal). This was then regressed against the intake of EECM or SECM (kg DM) to determine the IDE, ME or MEn (kcal/kg DM) of the canola meal samples using slopes of the regression lines.

Statistical analysis

Data for the ileal digestibility and total tract retention of energy were analyzed using the GLM procedures of SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). The model included diet and block as the independent variables and individual cage served as the experimental unit. The orthogonal polynomial contrast was used to examine the relationship between energy utilization response criteria and graded concentrations of either EECM or SECM. The EECM- or SECM-associated IDE, ME or MEn intake (kcal) was regressed against the intake of EECM or SECM for cage of six birds, respectively. Slopes and intercepts derived from 3 cages of 0, 100, or 200 g of canola meal substitution in each block were generated using the SLOPE and INTERCEPT functions in Microsoft Office Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA), respectively. The intercept and slope data were analyzed as a one-way ANOVA in a completely randomized design using canola meal type as the independent variable and the intercept or slope as the dependent variable with 1 df for canola meal type and 14 df for the error term (Adeola and Ileleji 2009). In this analysis, experimental unit was a block of 3 cages of 0, 100, or 200 g of canola meal type substitution. Statistical significance level was set at 5 %.

Results

The CP contents in EECM and SECM were analyzed to be similar (398.7 vs. 402.0 g/kg, on DM basis), which was also reflected in the analyzed values of AA for the respective ingredients. The EECM had greater GE (5789 vs. 4895 kcal/kg, on DM basis) and ether extract (EE) (138.7 vs. 24.3 g/kg, on DM basis) contents than SECM whereas the value of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) was greater in the SECM than in EECM (265.3 vs. 233.8 g/kg). Regardless of the canola type, the body weight gain, feed intake, and feed efficiency of the birds were not influence (P > 0.05) by the supplementation of canola meal to the reference diet (Table 4).
Table 4

Growth performance of broilers fed the experimental diets containing expeller-extracted canola meal (EECM) or solvent extracted canola meal (SECM) levels at 0, 100, 200 g/kg

Item

0

EECM

SECM

SEM

P value

100

200

100

200

La

Qa

Lb

Qb

Initial body weight (g)

400

400

400

401

400

0.5

0.858

0.608

0.744

0.273

Final body weight (g)

762

768

724

766

737

14.2

0.077

0.179

0.223

0.367

Body weight gain (g/7 day/bird)

362

368

324

365

337

14.0

0.074

0.168

0.221

0.380

Feed intake (g/7 day/bird)

558

526

514

531

525

19.1

0.124

0.694

0.248

0.661

Feed efficiency (g/kg)

655

699

635

689

642

25.2

0.589

0.099

0.707

0.196

Values are means of five replicate cages with six birds per cage

SEM standard error of the mean

aLinear (L) and quadratic (Q) contrasts for the EECM

bLinear (L) and quadratic (Q) contrasts for the SECM

The data presented in Table 5 show the ileal digestibility and total tract retention of DM, N and energy of experimental diets used in the current study. There were linear (P < 0.05) and quadratic (P < 0.05) decreases in ileal digestibility of DM and energy as well as IDE as the EECM level in the diets increased from 0 to 200 g/kg. As the SECM substitution into the reference diet increased from 0 to 200 g/kg, all the response criteria measured linearly increased (P < 0.05) with the exception of the N retention which was not affected by the substitution of SECM.
Table 5

Dry matter (DM), energy, and nitrogen (N) digestibility and total tract retention of broilers fed the experimental diets containing expeller-extracted canola meal (EECM) or solvent extracted canola meal (SECM) levels at 0, 100, 200 g/kg

Item

0

EECM

SECM

SEM

P value

100

200

100

200

La

Qa

Lb

Qb

Ileal DM digestibility (%)

72.1

66.9

67.1

71.3

67.9

0.598

<0.001

0.002

<0.001

0.086

Total tract DM retention (% of DM intake)

66.9

64.9

62.2

66.3

60.4

1.623

0.057

0.852

0.012

0.200

Ileal N digestibility (%)

82.9

80.8

82.3

82.3

80.5

0.701

0.530

0.046

0.028

0.499

Total tract N retention (% of N intake)

55.8

57.0

54.0

56.6

50.3

2.828

0.655

0.550

0.191

0.325

Total tract N retention (mg/g of DM intake)

22.2

22.7

21.5

22.5

20.0

1.126

0.656

0.550

0.191

0.325

Ileal energy digestibility (%)

76.0

72.1

72.1

75.7

73.1

0.520

<0.001

0.007

0.001

0.087

Total tract energy retention (% energy intake)

73.7

72.1

70.1

73.2

68.3

1.227

0.052

0.933

0.007

0.164

IDE (kcal/kg of DM)

3485

3358

3399

3498

3399

24

0.024

0.013

0.024

0.078

AME (kcal/kg of DM)

3379

3355

3304

3382

3178

57

0.362

0.846

0.024

0.156

AMEn (kcal/kg of DM)

3196

3168

3127

3198

3013

49

0.332

0.914

0.018

0.141

SEM standard error of the mean, IDE ileal digestible energy, AME apparent metabolizable energy, AME n nitrogen-corrected AME

aLinear (L) and quadratic (Q) contrasts for the EECM

bLinear (L) and quadratic (Q) contrasts for the SECM

The regression of IDE, ME and MEn intake associated with either EECM or SECM against the intake of substituted canola meals depicted in Figs. 1 or 2, respectively. Regression equations of IDE, ME and MEn for the EECM substituted diet were Y = −21.2 + 3035X (r2 = 0.946), Y = −1.0 + 2807X (r2 = 0.884) and Y = −2.0 + 2679X (r2 = 0.902), respectively. The respective equations for the SECM diet were Y = 20.7 + 2881X (r2 = 0.962), Y = 27.2 + 2077X (r2 = 0.875) and Y = 24.7 + 2013X (r2 = 0.901).
Fig. 1

Regression of energy (IDE, ME or MEn) intake (Y, kcal) associated with expeller-extracted canola meal (EECM) intake against the intake of EECM (X, kg DM) for birds fed experimental diets from day 14 to 21. Regression equations of IDE, ME and MEn for the EECM-substituted diet were Y = −21.2 + 3035X (r2 = 0.946), Y = −1.0 + 2807X (r2 = 0.884) and Y = −2.0 + 2679X (r2 = 0.902), respectively

Fig. 2

Regression of energy (IDE, ME or MEn) intake (Y, kcal) associated with solvent-extracted canola meal (SECM) intake against the intake of SECM (X, kg DM) for birds fed experimental diets from day 14 to 21. Regression equations of IDE, ME and MEn for the SECM-substituted diet were Y = 20.7 + 2881X (r2 = 0.962), Y = 27.2 + 2077X (r2 = 0.875) and Y = 24.7 + 2013X (r2 = 0.901), respectively

Comparisons of slopes and intercepts for the IDE, ME, MEn regressions between the SECM and EECM are presented in Table 6. The slopes for ME and MEn were greater (P < 0.05) for the EECM than for the SECM, whereas slope for IDE did not differ between the EECM and SECM.
Table 6

Comparison of two types of canola meal for intercepts and slopes of the regressions in the determination of ileal digestible energy (IDE), metabolizable energy (ME) and nitrogen-corrected ME (MEn) of expeller- or solvent extracted canola meal

Item

Intercept (kcal)

Slope (kcal/kg)

IDE

  

 Expeller extracted

−21.2

3035

 Solvent extracted

20.8

2881

 SEM

5.6

183

 P value

<0.001

0.568

ME

  

 Expeller extracted

−1

2807

 Solvent extracted

27.4

2077

 SEM

19.7

198

 P value

0.338

0.031

MEn

  

 Expeller extracted

−2.2

2679

 Solvent extracted

24.8

2013

 SEM

16.4

174

 P value

0.279

0.027

SEM standard error of the mean

Discussion

The general steps of solvent-extraction method include flaking, cooking, pressing, and solvent-extraction of seeds followed by desolventizing, toasting, and drying of the extracted meal whereas the steps for expeller-extraction method only include flaking, cooking, and pressing of seeds (Spragg and Mailer 2007). The difference in extraction method could influence the composition of two types of canola meal. In the current study, the EECM had 18.4 and 471 % greater GE and EE, respectively, than SECM, which could be due to the difference in extraction method because an additional oil-extraction process by solvent is performed for the SECM. Woyengo et al. (2010b) reported greater GE (5199 vs. 4812 kcal/kg on DM basis) and EE (12.03 vs. 5.54 %, on DM basis) contents in EECM compared with SECM. Moreover the GE and EE contents in EECM used in the previous study was slightly less compared with the present study, which could be attributed to the number of extractions performed (single extraction for the present study vs. double extraction for the previous study) to maximize oil recovery.

The greater NDF content in the SECM compared with the EECM observed in the current study is in agreement with the study by Woyengo et al. (2010b). One of common Maillard reaction products is neutral detergent insoluble nitrogen (Khajali and Slominski 2012) which falls in NDF fraction (van Soest 1994). Maillard reaction can occur during both oil extraction processes due to high temperature of the expeller pressing process for the EECM and desolventizing and toasting processes for the SECM, but the extent of the Maillard reaction may be less for the EECM than for the SECM because the expeller pressing process is faster compared with desolventizing and toasting processes (Landero et al. 2012). The 903 kcal/kg DM greater GE in EECM than in SECM (5798 vs. 4895) is fully accounted for by the 114 g/kg DM greater EE in EECM than in SECM (138.7 vs. 24.3) and the 31.5 g/kg DM lower NDF in EECM than in SECM (238.8 vs. 265.3) using gross energies of 9.2 and 4.5 kcal/g for EE and NDF.

Regardless of the type of canola meals, the influences by the addition of graded canola meal were not observed. These results might be attributed to the short experimental period in which the effect of treatments on the growth performance may not be obvious (Woyengo et al. 2010b).

Substitution of two canola meals at 100 or 200 g/kg of diet for the energy supplying ingredients (corn, soybean meal, soybean oil, and cornstarch) in the reference diet linearly decreased ileal DM and energy digestibility as well as the IDE of diet. This may be attributed to the level of fiber in both canola meals used in the current study because both EECM and SECM had relatively greater contents of fiber compared with corn and SBM (NRC 2012). Due to the physical presence of fiber in the gastrointestinal tract, fiber may have a detrimental influence on the utilization of nutrients in broiler chickens (Pettersson and Aman 1989; Choct and Annison 1990). The physical barrier of the cell walls of fiber can encapsulate potentially available nutrients. Furthermore, the viscous properties of fiber may interfere with the digestion process and thereby reduce the digestibility of other nutrients (Choct and Annison 1992; Steenfeldt 2001). Consequently, the fiber components have negative impact on the digestibility of nutrients in the broiler chickens and lead to lower energy utilization. High dietary fiber may increase the passage rate of digesta (Khajali and Slominski 2012), which adversely affect the digestibility of nutrient.

In the current study, the EECM compared with SECM had 35 or 33 % more ME (2807 vs. 2077 kcal/kg) or MEn (2679 vs. 2013 kcal/kg) estimated by the regression method, respectively. Using the difference method, Woyengo et al. (2010b) also reported greater AME (3039 vs. 2005 kcal/kg, on DM basis) and AMEn (2694 vs. 1801 kcal/kg, on DM basis) contents in EECM than in SECM fed to broilers. This in part could result from the difference in the fat content between the EECM and SECM. The concentration of ether extract in EECM used in the present study or the study by Woyengo et al. (2010b) was 471 (13.87 vs. 2.43 %) or 217 % (5.54 vs. 12.03 %) greater than in SECM, respectively.

The significant differences in ME or MEn between the SECM and EECM were observed in the present study whereas the difference in the IDE was not significant. The reason for these results was not clear. Speculatively, difference in the fermentation of undigested dietary fibrous contents might have contributed to such difference in ME values. Because microbes in the ceca of broiler chickens are able to ferment undigested dietary fiber contents entering from the ileum into short chain fatty acids which could be absorbed by broiler chickens and used as energy (Sugahara et al. 2004).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the results showed that the EECM used in the current study had more fat as well as less NDF and consequently more GE content compared with the SECM. In addition, the ME and MEn contents of the EECM were greater than those of the SECM, which indicates that the EECM might be a superior energy source for broiler chickens compared with the SECM when both canola meals are used to reduce the cost of feeding.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

CK: Conducted analysis, calculations, analysis of the data, and wrote the manuscript. OA: Supervised the experimental work and manuscript preparation. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Pat Jaynes and Anna Goad (Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN) for their varied roles in the conduct of and contribution to this study. The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. Martin Nyachoti (University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada) for providing expeller-extracted canola meal. This paper was supported by the KU Research Professor Program of Konkuk University.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Animal Science and Technology, Konkuk University
(2)
Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University

References

  1. Adeola O, Ileleji KE (2009) Comparison of two diet types in the determination of metabolizable energy content of corn distillers dried grains with solubles for broiler chickens by the regression method. Poult Sci 88:579–585View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. AOAC (2005) Official methods of analysis, 18th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists International, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Choct M, Annison G (1990) Anti-nutritive activity of wheat pentosans in broiler diets. Br Poult Sci 31:811–821View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Choct M, Annison G (1992) Anti-nutritive effect of wheat pentosans in broiler chickens: roles of viscosity and gut microflora. Br Poult Sci 33:821–834View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Fenton TW, Fenton M (1979) An improved procedure for the determination of dietary chromic oxide in feed and feces. Can J Anim Sci 59:631–634View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Hill FW, Anderson DL (1958) Comparison of metabolizable energy and productive energy determinations with growing chicks. J Nutr 64:587–603Google Scholar
  7. Khajali F, Slominski BA (2012) Factors that affect the nutritive value of canola meal for poultry. Poult Sci 91:2564–2575View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim BG, Lindemann MD (2007) A new spreadsheet method for the experimental animal allotment. J Anim Sci 85(Suppl. 2):218Google Scholar
  9. Kong C, Adeola O (2014) Invited review: Evaluation of amino acid and energy utilization in feedstuff for swine and poultry diets. Asian Australas J Anim Sci 27:917–925View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Landero JL, Beltranena E, Cervantes M, Araiza AB, Zijlstra RT (2012) The effect of feeding expeller-pressed canola meal on growth performance and diet nutrient digestibility in weaned pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 171:240–245View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Maison T, Stein HH (2014) Digestibility by growing pigs of amino acids in canola meal from North America and 00-rapeseed meal and 00-rapeseed expellers from Europe. J Anim Sci 92:3502–3514View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Newkirk R (2009) Canola meal feed industry guide, 4th edn. Canadian International Grains Institute, WinnipegGoogle Scholar
  13. NRC (2012) Nutrient requirements of swine, 11th edn. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Pettersson D, Aman P (1989) Enzyme supplementation of a poultry diet containing rye and wheat. Br J Nutr 62:139–149View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Spragg J, Mailer R (2007) Canola meal value chain quality improvement. A final report prepared for AOF and Pork CRC. JCS Solutions Pty Ltd., BerwickGoogle Scholar
  16. Steenfeldt S (2001) The dietary effect of different wheat cultivars for broiler chickens. Br Poult Sci 42:595–609View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Sugahara K, Matsumoto M, Yamada M, Yaoshizawa F, Karasawa Y (2004) Effect of bilateral cecal ligation on the use dietary energy in growing chickens. J Anim Sci 75:431–434View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Toghyani M, Rodgers N, Barekatain MR, Iji PA, Swick RA (2014) Apparent metabolizable energy value of expeller-extracted canola meal subjected to different processing conditions for growing broiler chickens. Poult Sci 93:2227–2236View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. van Soest PJ (1994) Nutritional ecology of ruminants, 2nd edn. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  20. Woyengo TA, Kiarie E, Nyachoti CM (2010a) Energy and amino acid utilization in expeller-extracted canola meal fed to growing pigs. J Anim Sci 88:1433–1441View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Woyengo TA, Kiarie E, Nyachoti CM (2010b) Metabolizable energy and standardized ileal digestible amino acid contents of expeller-extracted canola meal fed to broiler chicks. Poult Sci 89:1182–1189View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2016