Animal feed resources information system

Lentil (Lens culinaris)


Click on the "Nutritional aspects" tab for recommendations for ruminants, pigs, poultry, rabbits, horses, fish and crustaceans
Common names 

Lentil, red dahl [English]; lenteja [Spanish]; lentilha [Portuguese]; lentille [French]; Linse, Erve [German]; lenticchia [Italian]; mdengu [Swahili]; Linze [Dutch]; Mercimek [Turkish]; Đậu lăng [Vietnamese]; عدس [Arabic]; মসুর ডাল [Bengali]; Φακή [Greek]; મસુર [Gujarati]; 렌즈콩, 렌틸콩 [Korean]; मसूर दाल [Hindi]; עדשה תרבותית [Hebrew]; मसूर [Marathi]; मुसुरो [Nepali]; レンズマメ, ヒラマメ [Japanese]; Чечевица пищевая, Чечевица обыкновенная [Russian]; මසූර් [Sinhala]; மைசூர்ப் பருப்பு [Tamil]; 小扁豆 [Chinese] 

  • Products: cull lentils, culled lentils, surplus lentils, lentil screenings, lentil bran, lentil chuni, lentil hulls, lentil straw

Ervum lens L., Lens esculenta Moench, Lens lens Huth, Vicia lens (L.) Coss. & Germ.

Related feed(s) 

Lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) is a legume mainly grown for its edible seeds (Ford et al., 2007; Bejiga, 2006). It is an annual, bushy and herbaceous plant that can reach 60-75 cm high. The stems are hairy, slender and many-branched. The leaves are pinnately compound, ending in a tendril or bristle. The 5 to 16 leaflets are opposite, oblong to elliptical, 3-20 mm long x 2-8 mm broad. The papilionaceous flowers vary in colour from white to purple and are borne on 2-5 cm long axillary racemes. The fruits are small, laterally compressed pods that contain two or three lens-shaped, grey, green, brownish, pale red or black seeds, the size of which depends on cultivar type and ranges from 2-9 mm x 2-3 mm (Ecocrop, 2012; Bejiga, 2006). The lentil species Lens culinaris has one cultivated subspecies (Lens culinaris Medik. subsp. culinaris) and 3 wild subspecies (Ford et al., 2007). 

Lentils rank 5th among the most important legume grains in the world and are extremely important in the diets of many people in India and the Middle East (FAO, 2012; Göhl, 1982). Lentils are a highly valued food due to their good taste and nutritional quality, which makes them too expensive to be fed to livestock (Blair, 2008). They are eaten cooked, fried, spilt and ground in a wide range of dishes (soups, salads, stews, etc.). Lentil flour is used for pastry, bread and starch. Young pods and leaves are eaten as a vegetable (Bejiga, 2006). Lentils are an N-fixing legume that can be a valuable ley in cereal crop rotations (Lardy et al., 2009; Bejiga, 2006).

The following lentil products and by-products are sometimes used for animal feeding (Lardy et al., 2009; Bejiga, 2006):

  • Surplus lentils and culled lentils unsuitable for human consumption are sometimes fed to livestock due to their low price.
  • Lentil screenings are the by-products of cleaning lentil seeds. They may consist of whole and broken lentils, cereal grains, weed seeds, chaff and dust (Stanford et al., 1999).
  • Lentil bran (called chuni in India) or lentil hulls are the outer envelopes of lentils resulting from dehulling operations.
  • Lentil straw is the crop residue of lentil harvesting from the threshing process. It includes broken branches, pod walls and leaflets (Erskine et al., 1990).
  • Lentil plants that cannot be harvested can also be used as forage.

Lentils originated from the Fertile Crescent (Eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf) and then spread to Europe, the Middle East, Northern Africa and the Indo-Gangetic Plain. It is one of the earliest domesticated grain legume and was grown in Syria in association with wheat and barley as early as 8500-7500 BC. They are now cultivated in most subtropical and temperate areas, notably in low rainfall regions. The cultivated subspecies Lens culinaris subsp. culinaris is divided into two groups of cultivars: Macrosperma (large seeds) lentils are mainly cultivated in Europe, North Africa and America, whereas Microsperma (small seeds) lentils are grown in Asia, Egypt and Ethiopia. Both types are cultivated in Western Asia and South-Eastern Europe (Ford et al., 2007).

Lentils are grown as a summer crop in temperate countries where winters are cold, and as a winter crop in subtropical areas. In the tropics, they can be cultivated at higher altitudes (above 1800 m) during the cool season (Bejiga, 2006). Lentils grow under a wide range of average temperatures (6-27°C) but does not do well in humid and hot tropical conditions. Intense or prolonged frost as well as temperatures above 27°C are deleterious to its growth. Lentils do well with below 750 mm annual rainfall and a marked dry period before harvest. Some cultivars can sustain periods of drought. Though it can stand a wide rainfall distribution (300 to 2400 mm), lentils cannot bear waterlogging and should be sown at the end of the rainy season in warmer areas, where they will grow on residual moisture (Ford et al., 2007; Bejiga, 2006). Lentils grow on many soil types, ranging from sandy to heavy clay soils, and on a large range of pH (4.5-9), provided that the soils are not saline, waterlogged or subject to flooding (Bejiga, 2006).


Lentil seeds

Lentils should be coarsely ground or rolled for optimum utilization in ruminants (Lardy et al., 2009).

Forage management 

Lentils are generally grown as a sole crop but do well when mixed with wheat, mustard or castor. Lentils can be intercropped with small grain cereals but rotations including other legumes, Brassica species (rape, cabbage), sunflower or potato should be avoided as they are all susceptible to the same diseases. Lentil seeds can be broadcast or sown in rows at a depth of 1-6 cm. Lentils are generally rainfed but do well under irrigation. Lentils are harvested when pods turn yellow. The plant can be hand-pulled or cut down, left to dry in the field and then threshed and winnowed. When harvesting is done mechanically, the plant is cut at a higher moisture content to avoid seed shattering. Lentil seed yield ranges from 0.4 to 4 t/ha. Fresh forage yield may be up to 7 t/ha (Bejiga, 2006).

Nutritional aspects
Nutritional attributes 

Surplus and cull lentil seeds

Lentils are a source of protein and energy and thus considered as a nutrient-dense and versatile feed (Lardy et al., 2009). Their protein content is about 27% DM and their starch content is about 48% DM, values which are slightly higher and slightly lower, respectively, than those of field peas (Feedipedia, 2012). The fibre content is low in food-grade lentils (ADF 5-6% DM, Ning Wang et al., 2006) but feed-grade lentils may content fibre-rich residues (hulls, etc.) that increase the fibre content. Like other legume grains, lentils are low in sulphur amino acids and tryptophan (Feedipedia, 2012; Ning Wang et al., 2006) and should therefore be supplemented with other protein sources when they are intended for monogastrics (Castell et al., 1990).

Lentil screenings

Lentil screenings contain diverse materials (other grains, weeds, dust, etc.) in addition to lentils, so their composition is extremely variable depending on the relative proportions of seeds and foreign material. Lentil screenings of good quality can be a useful protein- and energy-rich feed since the price can be competitive (Lardy et al., 2009; Stanford et al., 1999).

Lentil bran (hulls, chuni)

Lentil bran contains more fibre than the seeds and screenings but its composition can vary extensively as it depends on the respective amounts of envelopes and kernel fragments.

Lentil straw

Lentil straw, like other legume crop residues, is rich in fibre (ADF more than 30% DM) and poor in protein (less than 10% DM) though of a better quality than straws of small grain cereals such as wheat straw (Lardy et al., 2009). Variation in straw quality is largely due to differences in the partition of dry matter between leaf, branch, pod and root tissue in the straw (Erskine et al., 1990). The harvesting method has an important impact on lentil straw quality: manual harvesting followed by threshing on the floor tends to preserve leaves, resulting in a more nutritious leaf-rich straw whereas combine harvesting results in stem-rich straws. In one experiment, hand-harvested lentil straw contained 11% protein and 28% ADF vs. 6% protein and 50% ADF for combine-harvested straw (Lopez et al., 2005).

Potential constraints 

Antinutritional factors

Like many other legume seeds, raw lentils contain antinutritional factors including protease inhibitors, lectins, phytic acid, saponins and tannins, though in moderate amounts (Marquardt et al., 1988; Weder, 1981 cited by Blair, 2007). The deleterious effects of those antinutritional factors may be alleviated through processing, notably heat treatments (Castell et al., 1990).


Though they have a low oil content, lentil seeds are reported to be prone to rancidity once ground (Castell et al., 1990).


Lentil straw

Lentil straw tends to be more digestible and palatable for ruminants than cereal straws. Harvesting lentils leaves very few residues in the field, so it is recommended to allow animals to graze in order to salvage those residues (Lardy et al., 2009).

Nutritional value

Several studies have concluded that lentil straw has a lower NDF content, a better rumen degradability and a better whole tract digestibility than cereal straws (Sehu et al., 1998; Lopez et al., 2005; Singh et al., 2011). There are few studies on the nutritive value of lentil straw for ruminants. Four studies reported in vivo OM digestibility values comprised between 47 and 55% (Dutta et al., 2004; Abreu et al., 1998; Alibes et al., 1990; Sehu et al., 1998). However, a comparison of in vitro methods (enzymatic method defined by Aufrère and the two-stage method of Tilley and Terry), resulted in higher values comprised between 54 and 57% (Denek et al., 2004). Such differences may be explained by the variable leaf:stem ratio, which depends on the harvesting method. For instance, using in vitro gas production, a stem-rich lentil straw was found to have an ME of 6.7 MJ/kg DM vs. 8.3 MJ/kg DM for a leaf-rich lentil straw (Lopez et al., 2005).

Animal trials

In Jordan, in Awassi ewe lambs supplemented with concentrate (0.55 kg/head/day), the palatability, nutrient digestibility and weight gain from lentil straw were comparable to those from alfalfa hay, and higher than those from bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia) straw or wheat straw (Haddad et al., 2001). In Chile, sheep fed for much of the dry period on lentil straw supplemented with a molasses-urea-minerals mix lost less than 10% of their body weight (Tima et al., 1991). In India, a synergistic interaction with positive effects on the dairy performance of buffaloes and in vivo digestibility was observed when lentil straw was combined with urea-treated wheat straw (Dutta et al., 2004). A DM intake of 70 g/kg for lentil straws in sheep has been reported (Abreu et al., 1998).

Comparison with other legume straws

Several studies have compared lentil straw with other legume straws. Lentil straw was found to have DM in sacco degradability and in vivo DM digestibility values higher than those of chickpea straw but lower than those of common vetch (Vicia sativa) straw (Sehu et al., 1998). In another study, in sacco DM degradability was found to be similar to that of the straws of chickpea (Cicer arietinum), faba bean (Vicia faba) and purple vetch (Vicia benghalensis), but lower than that of the straws of pea, common vetch (Vicia sativa) and hairy vetch (Vicia villosa) (Bruno-Soares et al., 2000). A study found similar protein and NDF in sacco degradability values for lentil straw and common vetch straw but the in vivo OM digestibility of lentil straw was lower than that of vetch straw (55% vs. 65%) (Abbeddou et al., 2011).

Lentil bran (hull, chuni)

In India, a trial with cross-bred calves fed lentil chuni and alfalfa hay (2 kg/d each) showed that lentil chuni was a valuable protein and energy supplement (Paliwal et al., 1987). In bulls, rumen fermentation benefited when animals were fed a diet of 50% lentil chuni and 50% wheat bran, compared to one of these two ingredients alone (Gendley et al., 2009).

The in vitro DM digestibility of lentil hulls (51%) was found to be lower than that of faba bean hulls (57%) and higher than that of pea hulls (48%) (Mekasha et al., 2002; Mekasha et al., 2003). In sacco degradability of DM was lower for poor-quality lentil bran than for lentil screenings (30% vs. 49%) (Yalçin et al.,1992).

Lentil seeds and screenings

Feeding trials in North Dakota suggest that lentil seeds are very palatable and calves fed lentils performed equally to animals fed field peas or chickpeas (Lardy et al., 2009). Lentil screenings were found to have a poor OM digestibility (55%) despite a fairly low NDF content (29% DM) and a high crude protein (23% DM) (Stanford et al., 1999). Organic matter digestibility and DM intake were similar in beef cattle receiving diets containing either lentils, chickpeas or field peas, in replacement of corn and canola meal as the grain component in the diet (Gilbery et al., 2007).


Surplus and cull lentils are valuable feed for pigs as the levels of antinutritional factors are relatively low (Blair, 2007; Castell et al., 1990). The low sulphur amino acid content of lentils should be counterbalanced with another protein source (Blair, 2007). Crude protein and energy digestibility of cull lentils were 72% and 78% respectively (Bell et al., 1986).

Frost and blight-damaged lentils have been successfully fed to growing-finishing pigs in Canada, and shown to be worth using in a cereal grain-based diet as they provided low cost energy and protein (Bell et al., 1986). Lentil seeds could be included in growing-finishing pig diets at up to 40% without hampering animal performance. However, this high inclusion rate had deleterious effects on meat quality and a lower rate (10%) was recommended  (Castell et al., 1988). Supplementing the lentil-based diet with methionine (1 g/kg dietary level) resulted in better meat quality even at the 40% lentil inclusion rate (Castell et al., 1990). In starter pigs, lentils may replace soybean meal cost-effectively but the inclusion rate should not exceed 22.5% in the diet as higher levels decreased animal performance and feed conversion efficiency (Landero et al., 2012).


Cull lentils are occasionally available for poultry and benefit from moderate levels of antinutritional factors (Blair, 2008). However the nutritional value of lentils in poultry is lower than that of some other grain legumes such as mung bean (Vigna radiata) or chickpea (Wiryawan et al., 1995). The low sulphur amino acids content requires supplementation (Wiryawan, 1997). Lentil seeds have fibre-rich hulls and decorticated lentils have a much higher nutritive value than the whole seeds.


Lentils included at more than 20% in broiler diets decreased growth rate. Processing (heating) did not compensate for this adverse effect (Farhoomand, 2006). Good growth performance was obtained in young broilers fed 40% decorticated lentils supplemented with methionine (Wiryawan, 1997). For broilers, lentils should be used in carefully formulated diets with consideration given to the amino acid balance. A maximum of 10% is suggested, but could be higher with decorticated lentils.


The use of lentils in layers diets led to a decrease in egg production even at low inclusion rates (Kiliçalp et al., 1994). Lentils may be used in layer diets because of low-price opportunities, but it is essential to balance the amino acid content of the diet.


No information found (2012).

Nutritional tables
Tables of chemical composition and nutritional value 

Avg: average or predicted value; SD: standard deviation; Min: minimum value; Max: maximum value; Nb: number of values (samples) used

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 88.3 1.2 87.1 91.0 18  
Crude protein % DM 26.9 1.8 24.6 30.0 23  
Crude fibre % DM 4.9 1.1 2.9 7.7 18  
NDF % DM 13.0 6.8 8.1 27.4 11 *
ADF % DM 6.3 1.1 3.3 6.3 10 *
Lignin % DM 1.6   1.2 2.0 2  
Ether extract % DM 1.6 1.0 0.5 5.0 19  
Ash % DM 3.8 1.2 2.7 6.8 19  
Starch (polarimetry) % DM 45.7 5.3 29.7 53.6 18  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 18.5 1.2 16.6 18.9 3 *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 1.1 0.5 0.6 2.3 9  
Phosphorus g/kg DM 4.5 1.1 3.1 6.6 11  
Potassium g/kg DM 10.3 0.9 9.0 11.3 6  
Sodium g/kg DM 0.4       1  
Magnesium g/kg DM 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.5 6  
Manganese mg/kg DM 18 4 14 24 5  
Zinc mg/kg DM 38 7 29 44 5  
Copper mg/kg DM 14 10 8 32 5  
Iron mg/kg DM 88 22 73 126 5  
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Alanine % protein 3.9 0.7 2.4 4.3 7  
Arginine % protein 7.3 1.4 3.9 8.8 9  
Aspartic acid % protein 10.9 0.7 9.9 11.5 7  
Cystine % protein 1.2 0.2 1.0 1.5 4  
Glutamic acid % protein 15.3 0.6 14.7 16.3 7  
Glycine % protein 4.0 0.2 3.8 4.4 8  
Histidine % protein 2.6 0.7 1.3 3.8 9  
Isoleucine % protein 4.5 0.8 3.4 6.3 8  
Leucine % protein 7.6 1.3 6.8 10.9 9  
Lysine % protein 6.5 0.9 4.3 8.0 11  
Methionine % protein 0.9 0.2 0.7 1.1 5  
Phenylalanine % protein 5.0 0.8 4.3 6.3 5  
Proline % protein 3.6 0.5 2.6 4.0 7  
Serine % protein 4.2 0.7 2.9 5.1 7  
Threonine % protein 3.5 0.6 2.5 4.5 9  
Tryptophan % protein 0.8 0.2 0.5 1.2 7  
Tyrosine % protein 2.8 0.3 2.5 3.2 4  
Valine % protein 4.6 0.6 4.0 5.4 5  
Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Tannins (eq. tannic acid) g/kg DM 6.6 2.9 1.8 11.4 7  
Tannins, condensed (eq. catechin) g/kg DM 1.1       1  
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 92.4         *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 90.9         *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 16.8         *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 13.5         *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 78.5         *
a (N) % 55.9       1  
b (N) % 44.2       1  
c (N) h-1 0.112       1  
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 88         *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 85         *
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 78.0       1  
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 14.4         *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 9.8         *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 72.0       1  

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.


Abbeddou et al., 2011; AFZ, 2011; Bell et al., 1986; Bredon et al., 1962; Combe et al., 1991; Gilbery et al., 2007; Grela et al., 1995; Kande, 1967; Khan et al., 1957; Landero et al., 2012; Ning Wang et al., 2006; Ravindran et al., 1994; Urbano et al., 1995; Woodman, 1945

Last updated on 13/03/2013 11:39:50

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 89.2   87.9 90.4 2  
Crude protein % DM 24.3 1.6 22.7 25.9 3  
Crude fibre % DM 12.4   5.3 19.4 2  
NDF % DM 20.9         *
ADF % DM 10.9         *
Ether extract % DM 2.2   1.7 2.6 2  
Ash % DM 6.2 3.9 3.8 10.7 3  
Starch (polarimetry) % DM 50.7       1  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 18.3         *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 2.0       1  
Phosphorus g/kg DM 4.7       1  
Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Tannins, condensed (eq. catechin) g/kg DM 14.0       1  
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 90.1         *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 88.0         *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 16.1         *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 12.8         *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 78.0         *
a (N) % 35.6       1  
b (N) % 53.1       1  
c (N) h-1 0.056       1  
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 66         *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 61         *
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 6.8       1  

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.


AFZ, 2011; Stanford et al., 1999; Yalçin et al., 1992; Yalçin et al., 1994

Last updated on 13/03/2013 11:40:59

Note the extreme variation in crude fibre.

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 88.9 1.9 87.6 91.1 3  
Crude protein % DM 19.3 4.2 15.0 26.4 6  
Crude fibre % DM 21.8 12.2 8.4 32.2 3  
NDF % DM 50.3 2.3 48.6 53.0 3  
ADF % DM 40.3 7.2 35.9 48.6 3  
Lignin % DM 7.4       1  
Ether extract % DM 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.4 5  
Ash % DM 5.6 2.6 2.8 9.8 5  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 18.6   17.0 18.7 2 *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 6.2 1.7 5.1 8.2 3  
Phosphorus g/kg DM 3.7 1.7 2.2 5.6 3  
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
a (N) % 41.5   27.5 55.5 2  
b (N) % 35.1   30.6 39.5 2  
c (N) h-1 0.024   0.013 0.035 2  
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 55   46 63 2 *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 52   42 61 2 *
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 55.9         *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 10.4         *
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 3.1       1  

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.


Gendley et al., 2009; Krishna, 1985; Mekasha et al., 2002; Vargas et al., 1965; Yalçin et al., 1992; Yalçin et al., 1994

Last updated on 13/03/2013 11:34:23

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 88.0       1  
Crude protein % DM 12.6       1  
Crude fibre % DM 29.0       1  
Ether extract % DM 0.8       1  
Ash % DM 3.5       1  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 18.7         *
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 62.0       1  
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 58.1         *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 10.9         *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 8.8         *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 11.8       1  
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 44.6         *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 8.4         *

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.


Woodman, 1945

Last updated on 13/03/2013 11:47:29

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 92.1 1.3 90.4 93.8 6  
Crude protein % DM 7.0 0.8 5.8 8.6 29  
Crude fibre % DM 34.3 5.3 29.9 41.8 4  
NDF % DM 60.6 5.8 42.8 71.0 28  
ADF % DM 39.8 9.4 27.1 51.3 10  
Lignin % DM 9.7 2.9 5.9 13.3 7  
Ether extract % DM 1.5 0.4 0.8 2.2 8  
Ash % DM 8.9 1.8 6.0 11.2 11  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 17.9         *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 23.1 7.6 15.0 30.1 3  
Phosphorus g/kg DM 1.4 0.4 1.1 1.9 3  
Potassium g/kg DM 11.5       1  
Magnesium g/kg DM 2.6   2.5 2.7 2  
Manganese mg/kg DM 18       1  
Zinc mg/kg DM 16       1  
Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Tannins (eq. tannic acid) g/kg DM 19.4       1  
Tannins, condensed (eq. catechin) g/kg DM 4.4       1  
In vitro digestibility and solubility Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
DM digestibility, pepsin % 45.2 1.9 42.0 48.0 20  
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, ruminants % 55.0 4.4 46.6 55.1 4 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 51.6         *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 9.2         *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 7.5         *
ME ruminants (gas production) MJ/kg DM 7.5   6.7 8.3 2  
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 40.4   33.7 47.1 2  
a (N) % 48.2       1  
b (N) % 36.2       1  
c (N) h-1 0.090       1  
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 73         *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 70         *
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 36.2         *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 6.5         *
Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, rabbit % 40.2         *
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 7.2         *

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.


Abbeddou et al., 2011; Abreu et al., 1998; Alibes et al., 1990; Bruno-Soares et al., 2000; Denek et al., 2004; Dutta et al., 2004; Erskine et al., 1990; Haddad et al., 2001; Lopez et al., 2005; Sehu et al., 1998; Singh et al., 2011

Last updated on 15/04/2014 10:05:18

Datasheet citation 

Heuzé V., Tran G., Sauvant D., Bastianelli D., Lebas F., 2015. Lentil (Lens culinaris). Feedipedia, a programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. http://www.feedipedia.org/node/284 Last updated on May 11, 2015, 14:31

English correction by Tim Smith (Animal Science consultant) and Hélène Thiollet (AFZ)
Share this