Camelina sativa is an annual oilseed crop that requires low inputs. Recently, interest in camelina oil for both human use and biofuel production has increased. Camelina oil extraction is performed through two main methods, namely, mechanical expulsion and solvent extraction. The resulting meals from the oil extraction process show promise as an animal feed due to their high crude protein content. Solvent extraction removes more oil from the seed, which results in a meal that is lower in fat and higher in crude protein concentration than expelled meal (3.52 vs. 13.69% and 41.04 vs. 34.65%, respectively). Solvent-extracted camelina meal has a similar chemical composition to canola meal but less crude protein and more fiber than soybean meal. Camelina meal is also limited by its anti-nutritional factors, mainly glucosinolates. Camelina meal contains 23.10 to 44.90 mmol/kg of glucosinolates, but processing methods may be able to decrease the total glucosinolates. Heat-treating the camelina meal can decrease glucosinolates and remove residual solvent in the solvent-extracted meal. The fungal fermentation of canola meal has also decreased glucosinolates, which could be used in camelina meal as well. The selective breeding of camelina varieties to decrease glucosinolates in the plant is also a solution to the high glucosinolates found in camelina meal. Current feed regulations in the US and Canada limit camelina meal to 10% inclusion in broiler chicken, laying hen, and cattle diets.

This study evaluated the effect of limiting feed intake to 92% of ad libitum for 28 or 56 d of a 56 d finishing period on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and visceral organ mass in wethers. Thirty Polypay wethers (initial SBW = 25.6 ± 5.27 kg; 15 pens, 2 lambs/pen) were blocked by body weight and assigned to three treatments: ad libitum intake for 56 d (CON), 92% of ad libitum intake for 28 d and then ad libitum intake for 28 d (28L), or 92% of ad libitum intake for 56 d (56L). Cumulatively, DMI decreased as restriction length increased (p < 0.001), but the final SBW, ADG, and G:F did not differ between treatments (p ≥ 0.11). Hot and cold carcass weights along with carcass muscle and bone masses were lesser in 28L than CON, but 56L did not differ (p ≤ 0.04). Carcass fat mass was greatest in CON and least in 28L (p ≤ 0.04). Relative to EBW, liver mass was greatest in 28L and least in 56L (p = 0.03). Limit feeding for 56 d maintained carcass weight while increasing leanness compared to CON, whereas a 28 d restriction period reduced carcass and muscle mass, possibly due to visceral organ recovery.

This study used 10 replicate pens per treatment in a randomized complete block design and each pen contained 8 steers (initial BW = 305 ± 30.4 kg; n=80 steers/treatment) to determine if a phytogenic feed additive (PFA) with essential oils and plant extracts (PHYTOsolvan 200; DOSTOFARM, Westerstede, Germany) influences measures of growth or growth efficiency during the feedlot receiving phase in auction-derived beef steers. No steers were removed from the study; one steer from the control treatment was treated for respiratory disease. No mortality was noted in the present experiment. No appreciable differences were noted for BW, ADG, DMI, or feed conversion efficiency from d 1 to 29, 29 to 53, or during the cumulative receiving period (P ≥ 0.12). Performance based NEm and NEg were not influenced by dietary treatment (P ≥ 0.79). The ratio of observed-to-expected dietary net energy was not impacted by dietary treatment (P ≥ 0.71). These were healthy, high-growth potential Northern Plains steers. There was minimal morbidity (0.63%) and no mortality noted during the 53 d receiving study. Steers performed well and met growth performance expectations (the ratio of observed-to-expected NEm = 1.00), hence, it was not anticipated that the phytogenic compound would appreciably influence growth or health outcomes under the conditions of this experiment.