Canola Meal in finishing pig diet
8% or 12% of CM reduced TFC to almost 1$ per pig. However, no difference
(P<0.05) was observed in the FC ($/kg), TWG (kg/pis), TFI (kg/pig) and FCG ($/
kg wt. gain) of the finishing pigs.
Table 4. The effect of dietary increasing levels of domestic canola meal on apparent total
tract digestibility of nutrients (ATTD) in finishing pigs
Domestic canola meal (%)
P-value
Item
SEM 1
0
4
8
12
Linear
Quadratic
DM
77.96
77.22
77.07
76.61
0.72
0.238
0.854
GE
79.29
78.82
78.79
78.25
0.73
0.389
0.958
CP
72.16
71.84
72.17
70.88
0.66
0.271
0.492
Ash
40.06
39.59
40.21
38.77
0.68
0.327
0.504
1 Standard error of means.
DISCUSSION
Soybean is considered as the most favorable protein source in pig’s diets. However,
in last few years, canola meal being cheaply available as byproduct is catching an
eye of the nutritionist to replace the soybean meal in pigs diet to reduce feed cost.
The major difference between rapeseed meal and canola meal are the presence
of high glucosinolate and erucic acid content in former with valid toxicity and
palatability concerns (Khajali and Slominski, 2012). The breeding of canola from
rapeseed has made canola meal a conventional feedstuff for swine, especially for
grower-finishing pigs (Canola Council of Canada, 2009).
Table 5. Effects of dietary increasing levels of domestic canola meal on the production cost
in finishing pigs
Domestic canola meal (%)
P-value
Item
SEM 1
0
4
8
12
Linear Quadratic
FC ($/kg)
0.459
0.455
0.452
0.448
TWG (kg/pis)
33.60
33.30
33.13
32.89
0.38
0.204
0.942
TFI (kg/pig)
93.54
93.04
92.78
93.73
0.53
0.908
0.212
TFC ($/pig)
42.968 42.379 41.915 41.995
0.12
0.011
0.206
FCG ($/kg wt. gain) 1.279
1.273
1.265
1.277
0.01
0.858
0.584
1 Standard error of means.
The breeding efforts in canola to reduce the concentrations of the main anti-
nutritional factors glucosinolates and erucic acid were groundbreaking. These
efforts produced canola meal with an enhanced nutritional value in comparison
Journal of Animal Research: v.4 n.2. Dec. 2014
161