736 Research Article Received: 21 December 2012 Revised: 4 September 2013 Accepted article published: 18 September 2013 Published online in Wiley Online Library: 15 October 2013 (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.6408 Evaluation of Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz meal as an alternative protein source in ruminant rations Stefania Colombini, a Glen A Broderick, b Incoronata Galasso, c Tommaso Martinelli, d Luca Rapetti, a Roberto Russo c and Remo Reggiani c* Abstract BACKGROUND: Camelina sativa (CS) is an oilseed crop used for biofuel production. By-products from oil extraction are high in protein and can be used in ruminant rations; more information about their nutritive value is required also considering the antinutrional factor content of the by-products. The aim of this study was to evaluate the nutritive value of CS meal genotypes in comparison with canola. RESULTS: Ten CS genotypes and one canola cultivar were evaluated. Meals were obtained from seeds after solvent oil extraction. CS average crude protein (CP) content (g kg -1 dry matter) was 457. Numerical differences in lysine and sulfur amino acid content were observed among CS genotypes. Glucosinolate (mmol kg -1 ) content was higher for CS (23.1) than canola (7.2). Sinapine content (g kg -1 ) was lower for CS (2.79) than for canola (4.32). Differences were observed among CS genotypes for rumen undegraded protein (RUP). Average RUP (g kg -1 CP) was 316 for CS and 275 for canola. CONCLUSIONS: CS meal has potential for use in ruminant rations as a high-quality protein source. In vivo studies are needed to compare CS with other protein sources used in cattle rations. Implementation of breeding programs for improved meal quality is recommend. c  2013 Society of Chemical Industry Keywords: false flax; oil seed crops; by-product; antinutrional factor contents; rumen undegraded protein INTRODUCTION Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz (CS) is an oilseed crop used for the production of biofuels. When compared with other conventional oilseeds (such as canola and sunflower) CS has several agrotechnical benefits: cultivation of the crop is simple and environmentally friendly; application of pesticides/herbicides is not needed; 1 the plant is adaptable to marginal soils, showing good productivity, 2 – 4 and may be a suitable candidate for biofuel production in marginal environments. The usefulness of by-products from oil extraction is a pivotal factor for sustainable biodiesel production from CS 5 and this could reduce both feed and biodiesel costs while promoting environmental sustainability. Therefore, the evaluation of CS meal as a potential ingredient in livestock rations is a critical factor to further increase the economic value of the plant. By-products from biodiesel extraction from CS seeds are high in protein (about 450 g kg −1 ) and oil (about 100 g kg −1 ), and the energetic value of CS cake (MJ ME kg −1 DM) is higher for ruminants (15.0) than for pigs (14.0) and poultry (8.00). 6 A potential disadvantage of using CS meal in livestock diets is the presence of glucosinolates (GSL), phytic acid, sinapine and condensed tannins. 7 A 2002 European Union (EU) Directive 8 prohibited inclusion of detectable amounts of CS in livestock rations due to the presence of GSL. However, a 2008 EU directive, 9 evaluating detailed studies on farm animals fed with rapeseed, enables the feed use of CS and its derivatives. The permission provides that the amount of total glucosinolates in the diet does not endanger animal and public health and, for example, it allows the inclusion of up to 1.5 mmol kg −1 glucosinolates of feed for monogastric animals. This has led to a renewed interest in CS as an alternative, low-input oilseed crop that is potentially useful for animal feeding. Similarly, the American Food and Drug Administration has recently raised the inclusion level for CS meal in feedlot beef cattle rations to a maximum of 100 g kg −1 of dietary DM. 10 The use of CS meal as a feed for ruminants requires information on its chemical composition, nutritive value, digestibility and product quality aspects. Being a new by-product, farmers and researchers have ∗ Correspondence to: Remo Reggiani, Istituto di Biologia e Biotecnologia Agraria CNR, via Bassini 15, 20133 Milan, Italy. E-mail: reggiani@ibba.cnr.it a Universit` a degli Studi di Milano, Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali - Produzione, Territorio, Agroenergia, 20133 Milan, Italy b Agricultural Research Service, USDA, US Dairy Forage Research Center, Madison, WI 53706, USA c Istituto di Biologia e Biotecnologia Agraria – CNR, 20133 Milan, Italy d Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura – Centro di Ricerca per le Colture Industriali, 40128 Bologna, Italy J Sci Food Agric 2014; 94: 736–743 www.soci.org c  2013 Society of Chemical Industry