Animal feed resources information system

Cassava leaves and foliage


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

Cassava, Brazilian arrowroot, tapioca [English]; manioc, tapioca [French]; yuca, mandioca, tapioca, guacamota, casabe, casava [Spanish]; maniok [German]; cassave, maniok [Dutch]; rogo [Hausa]; ketela pohon, ubi kayu, atau singkong [Indonesian]; mandioca [Portuguese]; kamoteng-kahoy, kasaba [Tagalog]; manyok [Turkish]; sắn, khoai mì [Vietnamese]; Ẹ̀gẹ́ [Yoruba]; لكسافا [Arabic]; কাসাভা (Kāsābhā) [Bengali]; 木薯 [Chinese]; מניהוט מצוי [Hebrew]; कसावा [Hindi]; キャッサバ [Japanese]; 카사바, 마니옥 [Korean]; മരച്ചീനി [Malayalam]; Маниок съедобный, кассава [Russian]; மரவள்ளி [Tamil]; มันสำปะหลัง [Thai]

  • Plant names: cassava, manioc, tapioca, Brazilian arrowroot, yuca
  • Product names: cassava foliage, cassava leaves, cassava tops

Jatropha dulcis J. F. Gmel., Jatropha manihot L., Manihot aipi Pohl, Manihot dulcis (J. F. Gmel.) Pax, Manihot flabellifolia Pohl, Manihot leptopoda (Müll. Arg.) D. J. Rogers & Appan, Manihot manihot (L.) Cockerell, nom. inval., Manihot melanobasis Müll. Arg., Manihot palmata Müll. Arg., Manihot palmata var. leptopoda Müll. Arg., Manihot peruviana Müll. Arg., Manihot saxicola Lanj., Manihot tristis Müll. Arg., Manihot tristis subsp. saxicola (Lanj.) D. J. Rogers & Appan, Manihot utilissima Pohl (USDA, 2009)


Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) is mainly grown for its tubers that are used as staple food or for starch but cassava foliage can be a valuable fodder. It is then cultivated as a semi-perennial forage that can be harvested several times per biological cycle (every two or three months) (Phengvilaysouk et al., 2008). Cassava foliage can be fed fresh, but it is often preferable to dry it (cassava leaf meal) or ensile it as the leaves contain hydrogen cyanide that can be toxic to livestock.


Cassava is native to South America, and widespread throughout the tropics and subtropics, including Sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia. The main production areas are within 30°N and 30°S and from sea level to an altitude of 2000 m depending on the latitude (Ecoport, 2009).

Optimal growth conditions are an annual average day-temperature over 18-20°C, annual rainfall ranging from 500 mm to 3500 mm, high solar radiation and light, with well-drained and acid soils. Cassava may withstand light frosts at higher altitudes and cloudy conditions in the hot humid lowland equatorial belt. It is highly tolerant to poor soil conditions, drought and pests (Vongsamphanh et al., 2004), but it does not grow well in heavy, rocky and gravelly soils. It is susceptible to waterlogged, saline or alkaline soils. Zinc deficiency should be avoided while very low P levels are well accepted.

Forage management 

Fresh and dried foliage

Cassava foliage (stems and leaves) can yield more than 6 t of crude protein/hectare/year if proper agronomic practices are followed at harvesting (Phengvilaysouk et al., 2008). They are cut about 40 cm from the ground and chopped in small pieces by hand or in a stationary forage chopper (Göhl, 1982). Because cassava foliage contains HCN toxic to livestock, it is seldom used fresh and is usually processed by combining sun-drying with chopping and wilting, until the level of HCN in the hay or dried meal is safe for animals (Ravindran, 1992 ; Wanapat, 2002). Ruminants supplemented in elemental sulphur or sulphur-containing amino acids can eat fresh foliage (Göhl, 1982).


When the harvest occurs during the wet season, drying becomes difficult and ensiling may be a better solution. Cassava silage can be prepared with or without a carbohydrate source (such as chopped cassava roots or molasses) (Ngo Van Man et al., 2001). The whole cassava plant (roots and aerial parts) can be chopped and ensiled in pit silos for dry-season feeding. Simple equipment is required both for harvest and preparation of the silage.

Environmental impact 

Cassava is mostly cultivated by smallholder farmers living in marginal and fragile environments, particularly on erosion-prone, acid and infertile soils. This ability to produce on poor soils, where most other crops would fail, has given cassava a somehow undeserved reputation. However, there are serious environmental concerns about cassava production (FAO, 2001b). For the environmental impact of cassava processing, see the cassava by-products datasheet.

Soil nutrient depletion

Cassava production can be detrimental to soil fertility through crop removal of nutrients. Due the low value of cassava products, the application of manures and chemical fertilizers, which could easily correct nutrient depletion, may not be economically justified or not affordable for smallholders. However, it should be noted that, at current yield levels, soil nutrient depletion by cassava is lower than by that of other crops (FAO, 2001b).


Cassava production can cause serious erosion when the crop is grown on slopes on light soils. Good agronomic practices (adequate fertilizer, closer plant spacing, planting on contour ridges, intercropping, reduced tillage), used alone or in combination, can reduce erosion by 50-90%. Properly managed cassava production on slopes does not necessarily cause serious erosion (FAO, 2001b).

Water pollution

It is considered unlikely that cassava production results in water pollution, as it is grown mainly by poor farmers who apply no or very low rates of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. However, this may change in the future (FAO, 2001b).


Cassava production does not seem to have had broad effects on biodiversity, though some local situations, such as deforestation in the northeast of Thailand or the competition with native cassava species in Latin America, may merit attention (FAO, 2001b).

Nutritional aspects
Nutritional attributes 

The main characteristic of cassava leaves is their high protein content (as high as an excellent alfalfa) with a good amino acid profile except for methionine. They are good sources of minerals (Ca and trace elements) although P and Na contents are rather low. They also supply natural pigments (xanthophylls).

Potential constraints 

Cassava foliage contains hydrogen cyanide (HCN) in amounts ranging from 80 to 2000 mg/kg DM, depending on the variety, maturity, fertilizer application and post-harvest processing (Murugesrawi et al., 2006).

Sun-drying appears to be more efficient than oven-drying at 60°C for HCN reduction (Gomez et al., 1985). Wilting also reduced HCN (Chhay Ty et al., 2007). Ensiling is another way to detoxify cassava leaves. The HCN content of fresh cassava leaves was 508 mg/kg DM (Chhay Ty et al., 2005) and was reduced to 70.7 mg/kg DM after ensiling for 21 days with 5% of sugar palm syrup (1:1 of sugar and water) (Chhay Ty et al., 2001). Some varieties are better detoxified by ensiling while sun-drying is more efficient with others (Murugesrawi et al., 2006).


Cassava hay or cassava leaf meal used as a protein supplement in goats, sheep or cattle fed on poor quality diets have positive effects on animal performance. Cassava foliage is a premier forage supplement when feed is scarce.


In dairy cattle, cassava leaf meal included at high levels (up to 50%) in the diet had positive effects on DM intake, live-weight gain, milk production and milk fat content (Ngi et al., 2006). This may be explained by the by-pass protein effect of condensed tannins which protect the proteins from rumen activity (Wanapat, 2002). In cattle, up to 35% cassava forage has been used to provide by-pass protein to ruminants fed urea and molasses. The intake of cassava forage was about 5 kg per day, and about two months of adaptation were required before full production was obtained (Göhl, 1982).

In dairy heifers, fresh cassava leaves had a negative effect on blood parameters and growth rate but ensiled and dried cassava leaves had positive effects (Duong Nguyen Khang et al., 2006). Chopped cassava (3% live weight) with rice straw given to young cattle in Cambodia resulted in higher growth rates and feed intake than with a rice straw diet (Mom Seng et al., 2001).

Cassava hay fed as a supplement at 600 g/day to native cattle, fed on a rice straw basal diet with a rumen supplement, improved feed intake, rumen ecology and digestibility (Vongsamphanh et al., 2004).


In Cambodia, cassava leaves supported higher growth rates and feed intake than Flemingia macrophylla and Desmanthus virgatum. It also helped to reduce nematode infestation (Seng Sokerya et al., 2001).


Cassava leaves have been used to replace soybean meal in conventional diets for pigs and gave good results if ensiled or dried (Bui Huy Nhu Phuc et al., 2000; Khieu Borin, 2005). Cassava forage may also successfully replace high fibre components of the diet such as rice bran and give good economic results. Up to 36% wilted cassava leaves included in pig diets increased growth rate (Khieu Borin, 2005). Fresh leaves may be incorporated in pig diets with no toxicity effects at 5 mg HCN/kg LW/d (Chhay Ty et al., 2009).


The high fibre content of cassava leaves makes them unsuitable for poultry if fed at high levels. However their high protein and their availability as a by-product make them valuable.


Most authors report a decrease in growth performance when cassava leaf meal (CLM) is introduced in diets and feed intake can also be affected (Eruvbetine et al., 2003; Onibi et al., 2008). Performance is generally maintained at low levels of CLM (Trompiz et al., 2007; Iheukwumere et al., 2007) though adverse effects are sometimes observed with levels below 5% (Akinfala et al., 2002). Some authors report acceptable performance with higher rates of CLM (10 to 20%) when methionine and energy are added (Ross et al., 1969) or if pelleting is applied (Sankaravinayagam et al., 1999). Whole crop cassava meal, composed of leaves and roots, has also been tested, and the results are similar to a proportional introduction of CLM in a complete diet, i.e. a degradation of performance (Eruvbetine et al., 2003; Akinfala et al., 2002). Leaf protein concentrate has the same depressive effect as CLM (Fasuyi et al., 2005). Supplementation with enzymes did not improve significantly the performance of broilers fed CLM (Silva et al., 2000). CLM should replace other fibre-rich resources, such as alfalfa, copra meal or cottonseed meal (Ravindran, 1993).

In typical diets, the introduction of more than 5% CLM is not recommended, and the energy and amino acid (particularly methionine) levels have to be adequate.


Due to palatability problems, a limit of 5% has been suggested for layer diets (Buitrago et al., 2002). Cassava leaf protein concentrate has been used up to 8% without adverse effects (Oludare, 2006). An advantage of CLM inclusion at low levels in layer diets is the supply of natural xanthophylls, which have a positive effect on yolk coloration (Ravindran, 1993).

Japanese quails

In an experiment with Japanese quails, the introduction of up to 10% CLM or alfalfa meal did not affect growth performance (Ravindran et al., 1983). Both CLM and alfalfa meal produced the same increase in feed intake, which reduced feed efficiency.

Fruit coat meal

Under some conditions, cassava can flower and produce fruits that can be used in animal feeding. In an experiment with cassava fruit coat meal as a substitute for wheat bran in broiler diets, performance was maintained up to a maximum of 15% of the diet (Iyayi et al., 2005). However, the results suggested a low digestibility of organic matter. It is therefore recommended that this product is used at low incorporation rates, but only if the feed formulation can ensure sufficient energy.


Cassava leaves can be used to feed rabbits as they compare favourably with alfalfa meal and Aspilia africana, which is a common forage fed to rabbits in Africa (Pok Samkol et al., 2008). Rabbits fed on a mixture of fresh cassava foliage and water spinach had a lower weight gain than rabbits fed a pure water spinach diet (Pok Samkol, unpublished data, 2007 cited by Pok Samkol et al., 2008).

Fresh cassava foliage and cassava whole plant meal could be included up to 45% of the diet in weaned rabbits, in order to replace maize grain, without any adverse effects on performances or apparent nutrient digestibility (Akinfala et al., 2003).


Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)

Cassava leaf meal included at 10% in the diet of tilapia fingerlings gave the best growth, feed conversion ratio and survival rate compared to the control diet and other test diets (leaf meals of Gliricidia sepium and Stylosanthes humilis) (Nnaji et al., 2010). When tilapia fingerlings were given diets where sun-dried cassava leaves replaced 20 to 100% of the dietary protein, an almost linear depression of growth performance and feed utilization efficiency occurred with increasing amounts of cassava leaves in the diet. However, no mortality or morphological abnormalities were observed. Supplementing the diet in which 100% of the CP was from cassava leaves with 0.1% methionine slightly improved growth performance (Ng et al., 1989). However, much higher levels of cassava leaves have been used: in Cambodia, fresh or sun-dried cassava leaves from a sweet variety were included at 76-83% in tilapia diets. Survival was 100% on all diets and growth parameters were identical for fresh and dried cassava leaves, even though fresh leaves contained more HCN (333 vs. 50 mg/kg DM) (Chhay Ty et al., 2010).

The apparent DM digestibility of cassava leaf meal (50%) was similar to that of cottonseed meal and lower than that of palm kernel meal (48 and 56% respectively). Protein digestibility (50%) was much lower (81 and 76%) and energy digestibility was very low (29%) (Braga et al., 2010). Higher digestibility values have also been reported (63 and 72% for DM and protein digestibility respectively) but those values are lower than for groundnut meal and soybean meal (80-90%) (Nguyen Duy Quynh Tram et al., 2011).

Catfish (Clarias spp.)

Dry matter and protein digestibility values reported for cassava leaf meal in hybrid catfish (Clarias macrocephalus x Clarias gariepinus) are relatively high (76-79%) but lower than the digestibilities of groundnut meal and soybean meal (94-94%) (Nguyen Duy Quynh Tram et al., 2011). In Clarias gariepinus fed isocaloric and isonitrogenous diets, where cassava leaves substituted for 0 to 100% maize grain (0 to 30% of the total diet), the best growth response was at the 66.7% substitution level (20% of the total diet). Full substitution depressed growth (Bichi et al., 2010).

Asian sea bass (Lates calcarifer)

Cassava leaf meal included at 13 to 18% in the diet of Asian sea bass gave lower growth than the control diet (Eusebio et al., 2000).



When Indian prawns (Fenneropenaeus indicus, formerly Penaeus indicus) were fed a soybean meal-based diet, in which cassava leaf meal replaced 9% of the protein, prawns fed the test diet had a non-significantly lower weight gain and growth rate and a significantly lower survival rate than those fed the control diet (Eusebio et al., 1998).

Nutritional tables

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 22.5 4.7 16.1 33.0 34
Crude protein % DM 24.9 2.6 17.2 29.3 54
Crude fibre % DM 17.7 4.0 10.3 24.8 36
NDF % DM 42.3 12.1 24.0 58.8 17
ADF % DM 27.2 5.8 18.1 36.4 14
Lignin % DM 9.4 2.0 6.5 11.8 12
Ether extract % DM 6.8 1.1 5.0 9.0 26
Ash % DM 7.4 1.2 4.9 9.6 52
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 19.9 1.0 19.8 22.0 4 *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 11.9 2.4 7.4 18.4 33
Phosphorus g/kg DM 3.7 1.4 2.3 6.2 33
Potassium g/kg DM 12.5 4.7 8.7 22.2 18
Sodium g/kg DM 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.7 6
Magnesium g/kg DM 7.3 2.4 3.2 10.3 18
Zinc mg/kg DM 25 20 29 2
Copper mg/kg DM 29 29 30 2
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Isoleucine % protein 5.2 1
Leucine % protein 10.5 1
Methionine % protein 1.0 1
Threonine % protein 5.1 1
Tryptophan % protein 1.0 1
Tyrosine % protein 3.3 1
Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Tannins (eq. tannic acid) g/kg DM 65.9 60.5 26.0 155.5 4
Tannins, condensed (eq. catechin) g/kg DM 26.3 11.9 1.0 38.0 11
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 63.9 6.6 58.0 72.9 4
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 62.6 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 12.4 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 9.9 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 72.3 14.3 57.0 87.5 5
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 62.3 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 12.4 *

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


Baba et al., 2002; Bui Huy Nhu Phuc et al., 2000; Buntha et al., 2006; Chhay Ty et al., 2005; Chhay Ty et al., 2006; Chhay Ty et al., 2007; Chhay Ty et al., 2009; CIRAD, 1991; Dongmeza et al., 2009; Ferreira et al., 2009; FUSAGx/CRAW, 2009; Ho Quang Do et al., 2002; Holm, 1971; Holm, 1971; Hutasoit, 1959; Kategile et al., 1988; Keir et al., 1997; Ly et al., 2002; Mahyuddin et al., 1988; Mecha et al., 1980; Murugesrawi et al., 2006; Onwuka et al., 1997; Taiga et al., 2008; Vongsamphanh et al., 2004; Xandé et al., 1989

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:43:28

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 36.5 7.0 25.3 41.3 5
Crude protein % DM 26.3 2.1 24.2 29.4 5
Crude fibre % DM 10.8 0.6 10.3 11.4 3
NDF % DM 66.6 1
Ether extract % DM 12.7 1
Ash % DM 8.2 2.2 6.3 10.9 4
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 20.8 *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 14.0 1
Phosphorus g/kg DM 3.0 1
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 73.1 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 15.2 *

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


Chhay Ty et al., 2007; Chhay Ty et al., 2009; Iheukwumere et al., 2007; Ly et al., 2002; Murugesrawi et al., 2006

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:43:28

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 89.6 3.0 85.0 93.7 18
Crude protein % DM 25.5 3.2 20.3 31.4 27
Crude fibre % DM 17.1 4.8 8.5 24.7 13
NDF % DM 42.2 6.3 32.0 53.5 18
ADF % DM 31.0 5.8 15.4 41.7 18
Lignin % DM 8.0 4.2 2.4 14.5 9
Ether extract % DM 7.0 2.2 3.6 10.6 18
Ash % DM 8.4 1.3 6.1 10.7 21
Starch (polarimetry) % DM 1.7 1.6 0.7 3.5 3
Total sugars % DM 4.9 3.7 1.0 8.3 3
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 19.7 2.6 12.6 20.9 8 *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 20.9 4.1 15.6 24.7 4
Phosphorus g/kg DM 3.2 0.9 2.2 4.2 5
Magnesium g/kg DM 7.5 7.4 7.5 2
Manganese mg/kg DM 51 1
Zinc mg/kg DM 30 1 29 31 3
Copper mg/kg DM 23 12 9 30 3
Iron mg/kg DM 500 1
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Alanine % protein 6.1 1.0 4.6 6.8 4
Arginine % protein 5.6 0.9 4.4 6.4 4
Aspartic acid % protein 9.6 0.2 9.4 9.8 3
Cystine % protein 0.8 1
Glutamic acid % protein 10.7 0.3 10.4 10.9 3
Glycine % protein 5.2 1.2 4.4 6.9 4
Histidine % protein 2.1 0.4 1.8 2.6 4
Isoleucine % protein 4.8 1.3 3.8 6.7 4
Leucine % protein 8.3 1.1 7.0 9.1 3
Lysine % protein 4.8 0.5 4.2 5.1 3
Methionine % protein 1.4 0.1 1.4 1.5 3
Phenylalanine % protein 5.6 1.1 4.4 6.2 3
Proline % protein 3.7 0.2 3.5 4.1 4
Serine % protein 4.0 0.2 3.8 4.2 3
Threonine % protein 4.4 0.7 3.7 5.4 4
Tryptophan % protein 1.0 1
Tyrosine % protein 3.9 0.9 2.7 4.6 4
Valine % protein 5.0 0.8 4.0 5.7 4
Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Tannins (eq. tannic acid) g/kg DM 0.1 1
Tannins, condensed (eq. catechin) g/kg DM 20.2 16.8 2.6 36.0 3
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 68.2 1
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 66.8 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 13.2 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 10.4 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 75.0 1
a (N) % 27.7 26.3 29.1 2
b (N) % 43.7 43.2 44.2 2
c (N) h-1 0.060 0.052 0.068 2
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 54 *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 50 46 53 2 *
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 63.2 4.1 31.1 63.2 3 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 12.5 0.7 6.6 12.5 3 *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 11.6 0.3 6.5 11.6 3 *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 7.5 *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 51.0 51.0 51.0 2
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
AMEn broiler MJ/kg DM 7.8 1

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


Agunbiade et al., 2004; Bengaly et al., 2010; Bui Huy Nhu Phuc et al., 2000; Bui Huy Nhu Phuc et al., 2001; Cheat Sophal et al., 2010; Dao Lan Nhi et al., 2001; Du Thanh Hang et al., 2009; Hutagalung, 1977; Jayasuriya et al., 1982; Kanpukdee Suchitra et al., 2008; Kategile et al., 1988; Ledin et al., 2002; Murugesrawi et al., 2006; Ngi et al., 2006; Okai et al., 1984; Onibi et al., 2008; Promkot et al., 2003; Rajaguru et al., 1985; Ranaweera et al., 1981; Ravindran et al., 1986a; Ravindran et al., 1994; URZ, 2009; Vanthong Phengvichith et al., 2007; Vongsamphanh et al., 2004; Wanapat et al., 2000; Yousuf et al., 2007

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:43:28

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 24.4 7.8 19.1 33.4 3
Crude protein % DM 23.8 5.4 16.5 31.7 8
Crude fibre % DM 17.9 2.7 14.7 21.5 5
NDF % DM 42.5 11.6 24.8 55.6 6
ADF % DM 30.3 9.4 20.2 42.9 4
Lignin % DM 8.4 7.6 9.3 2
Ether extract % DM 8.3 2.6 4.6 11.5 6
Ash % DM 7.9 1.6 5.6 10.5 6
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 20.0 *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 25.1 24.6 25.6 2
Phosphorus g/kg DM 3.3 3.1 3.5 2
Magnesium g/kg DM 8.6 8.3 8.9 2
Zinc mg/kg DM 33 30 36 2
Copper mg/kg DM 31 31 31 2
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Alanine % protein 6.4 1
Arginine % protein 5.6 1
Aspartic acid % protein 9.3 1
Glutamic acid % protein 9.6 1
Glycine % protein 4.1 1
Histidine % protein 1.7 1
Isoleucine % protein 4.2 1
Leucine % protein 8.3 1
Lysine % protein 5.4 1
Methionine % protein 1.2 1
Phenylalanine % protein 5.6 1
Proline % protein 4.3 1
Serine % protein 3.8 1
Threonine % protein 3.9 1
Tyrosine % protein 4.4 1
Valine % protein 5.3 1
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 62.7 1
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 61.5 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 12.3 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 9.8 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 74.0 1
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 62.0 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 12.4 *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 46.0 1

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


Bui Huy Nhu Phuc et al., 2001; Dao Lan Nhi et al., 2001; Kategile et al., 1988; Kavana et al., 2005; Ly et al., 2002; Murugesrawi et al., 2006; Phuc et al., 2000

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:43:28

Datasheet citation 

Heuzé V., Tran G., 2016. Cassava leaves and foliage. Feedipedia, a programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. http://www.feedipedia.org/node/528 Last updated on April 11, 2016, 13:28

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