Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T22:23:06.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Masking the Taste of Rapeseed Meal in Dairy Compound Feeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

Gina Frederick
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT
J.M. Forbes
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT
C.L. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT
Get access

Extract

Oilseed rape meal is high in protein and available in the UK relatively cheaply. Toxic constituents limit its inclusion in feeds for pigs and poultry but this is not a problem with ruminant animals where microbial action in the rumen removes them. However, the bitter taste of rape meal has been thought to reduce its palatability for ruminant animals (Stedman and Hill, 1987) and it is recommended that its inclusion in compound feeds for cows should not exceed about 150kg/tonne; masking agents are incorporated to reduce this limitation.

The question to be addressed can be summarized as “can higher rates of inclusion of rape meal in dairy compound feeds be concealed by more mask?”. Twelve dry cows in late pregnancy were offered feeds with various levels of rape meal in combination with several levels of mask and rate of consumption was monitored.

Type
Dairy Cow
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Production 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Stedman, J.A. and Hill, R. 1987. Voluntary food intake in a limited time of lambs and calves given diets containing rapeseed meal from different types and varieties of rape, and rapeseed meal treated to reduce the glucosinolate concentration. Animal Production, 44: 7582.Google Scholar