Feedipedia
Animal feed resources information system
Feedipedia
Feedipedia

Soybean meal

Datasheet

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

Soybean meal, soyabean meal, soya bean meal, soybean cake, soybean oil meal, soybean oil cake [English]; tourteau de soja [French]; Sojaschrot [German]; Bã đậu nành [Vietnamese]; 大豆粕 [Japanese]; Соевый жмых [Russian]

Synonyms 

Dolichos soja L., Glycine gracilis Skvortsov, Glycine hispida (Moench) Maxim., Glycine hispida var. brunnea Skvortsov, Glycine hispida var. lutea Skvortsov, Glycine soja (L.) Merr., Phaseolus max L., Soja hispida Moench, Soja max (L.) Piper

Description 

Soybean meal is the most important protein source used to feed farm animals. It represents two-thirds of the total world output of protein feedstuffs, including all other major oil meals and fish meal (Oil World, 2015). Its feeding value is unsurpassed by any other plant protein source and it is the standard to which other protein sources are compared (Cromwell, 1999). While it has been an accepted part of livestock and poultry diets in the USA since the mid-1930s (Lewis et al., 2001), soybean feed production took off in the mid-1970s and then accelerated in the early 1990s due to a growing demand from developing countries. The expansion of aquaculture and prohibitions on the feed use of slaughterhouse by-products have also fueled the demand for this high-quality source of protein (Steinfeld et al., 2006).

Soybean meal is the by-product of the extraction of soybean oil. Several processes exist, resulting in different products. Soybean meal is usually classified for marketing by its crude protein content. There are two main categories of soybean meal, the “high-protein” soybean meal with 47-49% protein and 3% crude fiber, obtained from dehulled seeds, and the “conventional" soybean meal, with 43-44% protein, that contain the hulls. In solvent-extracted soybean meals, the oil content is typically lower than 2% while it exceeds 3% in mechanically-extracted meals (Cromwell, 2012).

Distribution 

Soybean meal is available worldwide. In 2014, soybean meal production reached 190 million tons and accounted for 62.5% of oil meals (FAO, 2016). Main producers were China (54 MT), the USA (37 MT), Argentina (29 MT), Brazil (27 MT), and theEU-28 (10 MT). Main exporters were Argentina and Brazil (Oil World, 2015). The EU-28 was the most important importer of soybean meal (22 MT) followed by South-East Asian countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines (Oil World, 2015). In the EU-28, soybean meal represented 61% of the proteins used to feed livestock, 16% of compound feeds, and an amount of 24 MT (Booth, 2015).

Processes 

There are 3 ways to extract soybean for oil and soybean meal. The most commonly used worldwide is solvent extraction. In the USA, virtually all soybeans (99%) are solvent extracted. This method effectively extracts the oil from the beans and only 1,5% residual oil can be found in the soybean meal. The second method consists in mechanical extraction of the soybean flakes with a screw press to extract oil, without using any solvent. This method produces less oil and a high fat soybean meal. The third method combines extruding and expelling of soybean flakes, and neither uses solvent for oil extraction (Johnson et al., 2004).

Solvent extraction process

In the solvent extraction process, soybeans are cracked, dehulled (optional), heated, flaked and passed (or not) through an expander that eases oil extraction by solvent (usually hexane). The use of the expander reduces the quantity of solvent required. The extracted flakes are further dried to eliminate the solvent, then toasted and ground. The soybeans may be be dehulled prior to extraction, and the hulls may be added back at the end of the process. If the hulls are not added back, the defatted soybean meal contains 48% crude protein and no more than 1.5% oil. This resulting meal is called high protein meal. The toasting of soybean meal after desolventation increases soybean meal digestibility as it removes urease and trypsin inhibitors (Johnson et al., 2004).

Mechanical extraction

Screw pressing

In the mechanical process (the oldest one), the soybeans are cracked, dried, heated (steamed) and fed to a mechanical press (screw press), then the resulting flakes are dried and ground. The heat generated by the friction of the screw press destroys the anti-nutritional factors in raw soybeans. These specialized meals have higher levels of residual oil (energy), lower protein contents, greater rumen by-pass values, and they are more palatable than other oilseed meals. They are valuable in dairy rations to balance the amino acids supplied by alfalfa forage, or corn-based by-products (Johnson et al., 2004).

The extracted flakes may be further refined into soybean flour and isolates that have specific feed and food applications.

Extruding/expelling

Extruding/expelling is a variation of mechanical extraction. Soybean flakes are fed to a dry extruder and do not require steaming. After dry extrusion, the meats are passed through a screw press to extract the oil. This process can be done at small scale in farm facilities and are much appreciated for labelled non-GMO soybean, for organic farming, etc. (Johnson et al., 2004).

There are many variations of these processes, notably treatments that improve the rumen by-pass protein value of the meal for ruminants, including combinations of heating, mechanical and chemical treatments (Johnson et al., 2004).

Environmental impact 

The high phytate content of soybean meal requires supplementation with inorganic sources of phosphorus in monogastric animals. Dietary P in excess of animal requirements is excreted into the environment and becomes an environmental pollutant (Dilger et al., 2006).

The high digestibility of the amino acids of soybean meal in diets for monogastrics and the high content of lysine allow the formulation of diets that contain less total protein than with other protein sources and less excess nitrogen in the feed, thereby reducing nitrogen excretion into the biosphere (Pettigrew et al., 2008).

Soybean meals are usually extracted with hexane, a solvent that is extremely flammable and non-biorenewable, poses health risks and is regulated as a hazardous air pollutant (O'Quinn et al., 1997).

Nutritional aspects
Nutritional attributes 

A highly palatable feedstuff, soybean meal is characterised by a high protein content (from 43 to 53%) and a low crude fibre content (less than 3% for the dehulled soybean meals). It has a very good amino acid balance and contains high amounts of lysine, tryptophane, threonine and isoleucine, which are often lacking in cereal grains. However, the concentration of cystine and methionine are suboptimal for monogastric animals, and methionine supplementation is necessary (McDonald et al., 2002). Amino acid digestibility is also very high (more than 90% for lysine in pigs and poultry) (Sauvant et al., 2004).

Soybean meal contains oligosaccharides such as raffinose and stachyose that cannot be digested by monogastric animals, due to the lack of a specific endogenous alpha-galactosidase. Raffinose and stachyose can cause flatulence and diarrhoea that may increase the digesta passage rate, and decrease digestion and absorption of dietary nutrients. In poultry, these oligosaccharides have been shown to decrease nitrogen-corrected true metabolizable energy, fibre digestion, and transit time (Parsons et al., 2000; Coon et al., 1990; Rackis, 1975 and Reddy, 1984 cited by Zuo et al., 1996). Low-oligosaccharide soybean meals are now available.

About 60-70% of phosphorus in soybean meal is bound to phytic acid, which is nutritionally unavailable to monogastric animals and reduces the availability of P and other minerals (Wilcox et al., 2000). Supplementation with inorganic phosphorus is required, and the addition of phytase may alleviate the problem. Low-phytate soybeans are under development but their productivity is still low (Waldroup et al., 2008).

Soybean meal is a poor source of B vitamins and lack of B vitamin supplementation in soybean meal-based diets may cause reproductive and performance problems in sows, older pigs and hens (McDonald et al., 2002).

Potential constraints 

Variability

Soybean meal is a very consistent product and one of the least variable protein sources for animal nutrition (Smith, 1986). However, genetics, growing conditions, storage conditions and processes cause variations in its composition and nutritional quality. Because soybean meal can be included in large amounts in animal diets, small changes in quality might translate into important changes in animal performance, therefore, it is necessary to monitor its quality very closely (van Eys et al., 2004).

Antinutritional Factors

Soybean seeds contain antinutritional factors. Soybean meal usually undergoes several heat treatments that destroy heat-labile antinutritional factors (particularly trypsin inhibitors and lectins) but it is necessary to assess whether the meal was adequately processed. Inclusion of soybean meal in broilers (21 day-old) diets containing low levels of TIA - trypsin inhibitor activity (1,8 mg/g vs. 4.8 mg/g) resulted in higher dietary digestibility coefficients for DM, N, energy, and aminoacids (AA) (Dourado et al., 2011).

Both under- and over-processing of soybean meal has been shown to depress average daily gains in broilers (Perilla et al., 1997). In pigs, performance of swine fed soybean meal will be depressed if it has not been adequately processed to inactivate the anti-quality factors (Grala et al., 1998). Underheating, that may result in the incomplete destruction of antinutritional factors, is verified by the urease test, which determines residual urease activity and is an indirect indicator of active trypsin inhibitors. Overheating causes Maillard reactions that decrease the concentration and availability of heat-sensitive amino acids, particularly lysine (van Eys et al., 2004). Overheating also suppresses phytate degradation in the rumen and leads to lower availability of dietary phosphorus (Konishi et al., 1999). Several methods assess overheating, including KOH protein solubility, Protein Dispersibility Index (PDI) and Nitrogen Solubility Index (NSI). Soybean meals adequately heat-processed should have PDI values between 15 and 30%, KOH solubilities between 70 and 85% and a urease index of 0.3 pH unit change or below. Residual antitrypsic activity can also be directly measured by reference methods, but the procedure is less adapted to routine quality control (van Eys et al., 2004).

Goitrogens and oestrogens

Soybean meal may contain goitrogenic substances. Soybean meal is goitrogenic for monogastrics and it has been shown to be responsible for the goitrous calves born to cows receiving soybean meal as the major source of supplementary protein (Hemken et al., 1971). Soybean meal contains 1 g/kg of genistein, which has oestrogenic properties (McDonald et al., 2002).

Non-Starch Polysaccharides (NSP)

The addition of 40 g/kg NSP to a commercial broiler diet decreased weight gain, feed efficiency and apparent metabolizable energy (AME) by 28.6, 27.0 and 21.2%, respectively (Choct et al., 1995). The antinutritive effects of NSP in poultry and pigs might be due to their physicochemical properties. In particular, soluble viscous NSP depress the digestibilities of protein, starch and fat (Smits et al., 1996). NSP content of soybean meal is approximately 61 and 103 g/kg (dry matter basis) for soluble NSP and insoluble NSP, respectively (Bach Knudsen, 1997). NSP increase microbial activity (fermentations) and may cause intestinal disorder. Birds cannot degrade α-1:6 galactoside, and the addition of enzymes could alleviate this problem (Leeson et al., 2005; Zanella et al., 1999). Enzyme addition (xylanase, protease and amylase) in poultry and pig diets is a good way to limit NSP issues (Dourado et al., 2011).

Phytates and mineral availability

Though soybean meal has a relatively high content in phosphorus, much of it is present in the form of phosphorus-phytate, a poorly digestible complex for monogastric animals. Most of phosphorus is thus excreted in manure, which raises growing concern about the effects of phosphorus upon the eutrophication of surface waters (Waldroup et al., 2008). Phytates also link to zinc whose availability is then low in soybean meal (Blair, 2007). Pigs fed on soybean meal should receive 50 mg/kg zinc, whereas the recommendation is 18 mg/kg for pigs fed casein (animal protein) as the source of protein in the diet (NRC, 1998 cited by Blair, 2007).

GM soybean meal

The potential health issues of genetically-modified soybean and other GM foods have been the matter of considerable debate. While most studies have failed to show deleterious side-effects to GM soybean use (EFSA GMO Panel, 2008), these varieties remain controversial, and are subject to legal authorisation in some countries. In the EU, for example, only 15 soybean varieties are allowed to be used as feeds (GMO Register, 2016).

Ruminants 

Soybean meal is an important part of the diets of ruminants due to its high amount of rumen-degradable protein (more than 60%), good amino acid balance and high cell-wall digestibility (INRA, 1988). It is also very palatable to ruminants. Inclusion levels in ruminant and pre-ruminant diets are about 35% in dairy cows and beef, 30% in ewes and 20% in calves and lambs (Ewing, 1997).

Cattle

Soybean meal is a staple of the diets of high-producing dairy and beef cattle in developed countries. In dairy cows, it has positive effects on feed intake, milk yield and milk protein content (Rego et al., 2008; McDonald et al., 1998; Polan et al., 1997; Baldwin, 1986). In steers, supplementation of soybean meal on prairie diets resulted in higher forage intake and nutrient digestibility (Krysl et al., 1989; Guthrie et al., 1988). In calves younger than 3 months, methionine, lysine and tryptophan are the 3 first limiting amino acids of soybean meal, but this deficiency disappears after 3 months (Abe et al., 1999; Abe et al., 1998).

While soybean meal is well degraded in the rumen and provides ammonia, amino acids and peptides for rumen microbial protein synthesis, it may not provide enough undegraded intake protein to meet the demands of highly productive animals. Therefore, an important line of research has consisted in developing techniques aiming at improving the rumen by-pass quality of the soybean meal protein. Many methods have been tested over the years:

Replacing part of the soybean meal by non-protein sources of nitrogen such as urea has also been extensively studied. For recent examples of this type of research, see Hadjipanayiotou, 1998; Melo et al., 2003; Paengkoum et al., 2009; Pires et al., 2004.

Due to the importance of soybean meal and to its high cost, particularly in countries that have to import it, there have been innumerable attempts at replacing it by other protein sources such as protein oil meals (cottonseed meal, sunflower meal, rapeseed meal, groundnut meal…), legume seeds (peas, faba beans, lupins…), starch and distillery by-products, leaf meals (alfalfa…), land animal proteins (meat and bone meals, poultry by-products and other slaughterhouse by-products) and fish meals. For recent examples of this type of research where soybean meal was compared to an alternative protein source, see Abu-Ghazaleh et al., 2001; McDonald et al., 1998; Brzoska, 2008; Wanapat et al., 2007; Froidmont et al., 2004; Seoane et al., 1990; Veira et al., 1990; DelCurto et al., 1990; Claypool et al., 1985; Ravichandiran et al., 2008; Tripathi et al., 2001.

The success (or failure) of replacing soybean meal by an alternative protein (or non-protein nitrogen) source, or of using a technical process to improve its feed value, is actually measured by a cost-benefit analysis: an alternative protein source that is nutritionally inferior to soybean meal may have a price and availability that makes it economically more interesting. Conversely, a relatively expensive process may result in such higher animal performance that its cost is easily absorbed by the additional gains. However, concerns about the potential health and safety issues associated with alternatives to regular soybean meal should be taken into consideration.

Sheep

As with cattle, there have been numerous attempts at replacing soybean meal in sheep diets with locally available and less expensive protein sources. In recent years, products as varied as sunflower meal (Irshaid et al., 2003), linseed (Giannico et al., 2009), bitter vetch (Haddad, 2006), pongam cake (Soren et al., 2009), banana trunks (Mathius et al., 2001) and fish meal (Aimone et al., 1996; Urbaniak, 1995) have been successfully tested from an economic perspective. Soybean meal, compared with energy sources such as maize or barley grains in late pregnancy or early lactation ewes, gave the same performance in animals fed low quality hay as a basal diet (Hill et al., 1995).

Goats

In goats, adding 1.6% urea to a soybean meal-based diet allowed a reduction of soybean meal by 12% (from 25% to 13% inclusion level) resulting in lower feed costs (Costa et al., 2009). In countries where such a practice is allowed, soybean meal can also be replaced by meat offals or poultry meal without altering animal performances (Oyeyemi et al., 2006; Sanchez Estrada et al., 2002).

Pigs 

Soybean meal is the preferred source of protein in pig diets due to its content of highly digestible essential amino acids (lysine, but also threonine, tryptophan and isoleucine). It is a good complement to cereals that contain lower levels of those amino acids but higher levels of sulphur-containing amino acids, particularly methionine, that are limiting in soybean meal. Cereal/soybean meal-based diets are thereby typical in pig farms located in countries where soybean meal is affordable (Pettigrew et al., 2008). Soybean meal can feed all classes of pigs, and the inclusion levels generally used are about 30% in growing, finishing pigs and sows, and slightly lower (20-25%) in piglets (Ewing, 1997). However, newly weaned pigs prefer dried milk products (whey or skim milk) as a protein source (Patience et al., 1995).

Dehulled soybean meal is roughly higher in energy by 5% and in lysine by 10 to 15% (Patience et al., 1995). It proved to have a better feed conversion ratio and to sustain higher animal performance than non-dehulled soybean meal from starters to finishing pigs (Swick, 1997).

Poultry 

Soybean meal is the major and preferred source of protein for all types of poultry, due to the amount and quality of its protein and amino acids. A diet based on maize and soybean meal provides a good balance of all essential amino-acids except methionine, but this problem can be solved by the inclusion of synthetic methionine (Waldroup et al., 2008). Soybean meal inclusion levels range from 25% in chicks to 30-40% in broilers, breeders and laying hens (Willis, 2003; McDonald et al., 2002; Ewing, 1997).

Other plant protein sources can partially and totally replace soybean meal in poultry rations, such as cottonseed meal, groundnut meal, sunflower meal and palm kernel meal, provided that they are used in combination with lysine supplementation. However, antinutritional factors and other potential issues may limit the use of these alternative protein sources (Elkin, 2002).

Rabbits 

Toasted soybean meal is a reference feedstuff for rabbits, and it is generally included at a 15-20% level in their diets (Lebas, 2004). As with other species, many attempts have been made to find alternative sources of protein in order to decrease feed costs. For example:

Fish 

Because of its global availability and cost, soybean meal is potentially considered as the most pertinent protein source as an alternative to fish meal (Brown et al., 2008). The most commonly used products in aquaculture are toasted soybean meals. Depending on availability, dehulled and non-dehulled soybean meals are used, as well as unground soybean cakes in several tropical and/or developing countries.

The general limitations with regard to the use of soybean products in diets for aquatic animals are due to the relatively high carbohydrate, low crude fat and crude protein levels, and the lower levels of sulphur-containing amino acids, compared to those found in fish meal. Phytic phosphorus is not available to fish, and also interfers with the absorption of other micronutrients. The presence of antinutritional factors in the seeds is also a matter of concern, though these are normally destroyed in toasted soybean meal.

Soybean meal is highly palatable to most warm water fish (Lowell, 1998; Akiyama, 1991). In different species of salmonids, partial replacement of fish meal by soybean products has been demonstrated (Kaushik, 2008). A commonly observed adverse effect with soybean products in the feeds for Atlantic salmon is related to enteritis (Baeverfjord et al., 1996; Bakke-McKellep et al., 2007), the exact cause of which has so far not been identified.

Crustaceans 

Shrimps and prawns

Soybean meal has been used to feed marine shrimp since the 1980s (Akiyama, 1991). By proper feed formulation using soybean meal along with other plant protein sources, it was possible to develop a “fish meal free” diet for rearing marine shrimp under pond culture conditions (Amaya et al., 2008). Fish meal can be totally replaced with soybean meal and distillers' by-products in the feeds for freshwater prawns (Tidwell et al., 1993).

Crabs

In the mud crab species Scylla paramamosain, soybean meal included at 30% in the diet had the highest digestibility of DM, protein and energy, and was a better ingredient than maize flour, rice bran and cassava meal (Phuong Ha Truong et al., 2009).

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 87.9 0.6 85.0 92.1 33523  
Crude protein % DM 51.8 1.2 45.2 56.1 33418  
Crude fibre % DM 6.7 0.9 3.5 10.1 24481  
NDF % DM 13.7 1.7 10.7 18.1 208 *
ADF % DM 8.3 1.5 6.0 13.5 202 *
Lignin % DM 0.8 0.4 0.2 1.8 187 *
Ether extract % DM 2.0 0.5 0.6 4.4 28800  
Ash % DM 7.1 0.5 6.1 9.4 8356  
Total sugars % DM 9.4 1.0 7.9 11.6 232  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 19.7 0.2 18.8 20.0 63 *
               
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 3.9 0.8 2.3 6.3 1797  
Phosphorus g/kg DM 6.9 0.5 5.8 8.6 1845  
Potassium g/kg DM 23.7 1.1 21.8 26.0 104  
Sodium g/kg DM 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.8 251  
Magnesium g/kg DM 3.1 0.3 2.4 3.6 17  
Manganese mg/kg DM 45 9 25 58 32  
Zinc mg/kg DM 54 5 42 61 23  
Copper mg/kg DM 18 2 15 23 25  
Iron mg/kg DM 346 154 149 617 8  
               
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Alanine % protein 4.4 0.3 3.9 5.2 120  
Arginine % protein 7.4 0.3 6.8 8.1 141  
Aspartic acid % protein 11.3 0.5 10.5 12.4 116  
Cystine % protein 1.5 0.1 1.3 1.7 211  
Glutamic acid % protein 17.7 0.9 15.7 19.7 126  
Glycine % protein 4.2 0.2 3.9 4.5 120  
Histidine % protein 2.6 0.1 2.4 2.9 90  
Isoleucine % protein 4.6 0.2 4.3 5.0 90  
Leucine % protein 7.5 0.3 6.8 8.0 101  
Lysine % protein 6.1 0.2 5.7 6.6 322  
Methionine % protein 1.4 0.1 1.2 1.6 234  
Phenylalanine % protein 5.0 0.2 4.6 5.5 128  
Proline % protein 4.9 0.2 4.5 5.2 36  
Serine % protein 5.0 0.2 4.4 5.4 125  
Threonine % protein 3.9 0.2 3.5 4.3 136  
Tryptophan % protein 1.3 0.1 1.2 1.4 38  
Tyrosine % protein 3.5 0.2 3.1 3.9 75  
Valine % protein 4.8 0.2 4.3 5.4 130  
               
Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Tannins (eq. tannic acid) g/kg DM 6.9 0.7 5.9 7.8 5  
               
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, ruminants % 91.9 3.7 86.0 98.0 10 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 92.2 3.2 86.0 97.0 10 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 18.2 0.5 17.1 18.2 4 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 13.6 0.6 12.6 14.5 10 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 80.4 3.6 80.4 97.0 4 *
a (N) % 15.3 5.5 7.8 20.3 4  
b (N) % 78.9 7.0 72.7 89.1 4  
c (N) h-1 0.104 0.026 0.078 0.129 4  
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 72   72 79 2 *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 65 7 50 73 13 *
               
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 85.3 4.2 74.5 91.2 18 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 16.8 0.5 15.6 17.6 16 *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 15.3 0.3 14.5 15.3 4 *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 9.3         *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 87.0 2.9 82.3 91.7 19 *
               
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 10.9 2.1 9.1 16.5 10 *
AMEn broiler MJ/kg DM 10.7         *
               
Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, rabbit % 79.1   76.2 84.6 2 *
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 15.6   14.9 16.3 2  
MEn rabbit MJ/kg DM 13.5         *

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

References

ADAS, 1988; ADAS, 1991; AFZ, 2011; Agunbiade et al., 2004; AIRFAF, 1998; Alcalde et al., 2011; Anderson et al., 1991; Arieli et al., 1989; Aufrère et al., 1991; Barnett et al., 1981; Batterham et al., 1984; Batterham, 1979; Bell et al., 1993; Bochi-Brum et al., 1999; Chiou et al., 1995; Christodoulou et al., 2005; CIRAD, 1991; CIRAD, 2008; Clark et al., 1993; Clark et al., 1997; De Boever et al., 1994; Erdman et al., 1986; Fekete et al., 1986; Fialho et al., 1995; Getachew et al., 2004; Goes et al., 2010; Guillaume, 1978; Henry et al., 1973; Huhtanen et al., 1988; Hurtaud et al., 2007; Israelsen et al., 1978; Jacob et al., 1996; Jondreville et al., 1991; Kan et al., 1988; Knabe et al., 1989; Lawrence, 1978; Lechevestrier, 1996; Lekule et al., 1990; Livingstone et al., 1977; Maertens et al., 1981; Maertens et al., 1985; Mancuso, 1996; Maupetit et al., 1992; May et al., 1971; Métayer et al., 2001; Morgan et al., 1984; Muztar et al., 1981; Nehring et al., 1963; Noblet et al., 1989; Noblet et al., 1997; Noblet, 2001; Okine et al., 2005; Oksbjerg et al., 1988; Oliveira et al., 2007; Orden et al., 2000; Pastuszewska et al., 1974; Polan et al., 1985; Promkot et al., 2003; Ribeiro Filho et al., 2000; Rudolph et al., 1983; Sharma et al., 1980; Shi et al., 1993; Smith et al., 1986; Stutts et al., 1988; Thielemans et al., 1991; Tiwari et al., 2006; Treviño et al., 2000; Van Cauwenberghe et al., 1996; Velez et al., 1991; Vérité et al., 1990; Vervaeke et al., 1989; Wainman et al., 1984; Weiss et al., 1989; Wiseman et al., 1992; Wood et al., 1970; Wood, 1987; Woods et al., 1999

Last updated on 12/02/2014 14:59:01

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 88.1 0.9 85.6 92.5 5039
Crude protein % DM 53.5 1.8 47.0 57.6 5069
Crude fibre % DM 4.9 1.2 2.3 7.8 4297
NDF % DM 11.0 2.7 6.9 17.9 102 *
ADF % DM 5.9 1.6 3.7 9.4 80 *
Lignin % DM 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.5 74 *
Ether extract % DM 1.8 0.5 0.5 3.7 4561
Ash % DM 7.2 0.5 6.2 9.0 2370
Total sugars % DM 10.6 1.0 8.8 12.2 54
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 19.7 0.3 18.7 20.1 70 *
 
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 3.6 0.6 2.5 4.9 407
Phosphorus g/kg DM 7.6 0.5 6.6 8.5 410
Potassium g/kg DM 25.0 1.9 20.0 27.2 18
Sodium g/kg DM 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 51
Magnesium g/kg DM 3.4 0.4 2.7 4.1 17
Manganese mg/kg DM 40 6 27 53 28
Zinc mg/kg DM 57 4 52 69 27
Copper mg/kg DM 18 2 16 26 26
Iron mg/kg DM 169 64 102 329 15
 
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Alanine % protein 4.3 0.1 4.0 4.6 899
Arginine % protein 7.3 0.2 6.9 7.8 695
Aspartic acid % protein 11.4 0.5 10.4 12.2 55
Cystine % protein 1.6 0.1 1.3 1.8 921
Glutamic acid % protein 17.9 0.6 16.7 19.3 900
Glycine % protein 4.2 0.1 3.9 4.4 895
Histidine % protein 2.7 0.1 2.5 2.9 670
Isoleucine % protein 4.6 0.2 4.0 5.0 895
Leucine % protein 7.7 0.1 7.2 8.0 908
Lysine % protein 6.3 0.2 5.7 6.7 989
Methionine % protein 1.4 0.1 1.3 1.6 923
Phenylalanine % protein 5.1 0.1 4.8 5.3 701
Proline % protein 5.0 0.2 4.6 5.4 851
Serine % protein 4.6 0.3 3.9 5.3 691
Threonine % protein 3.8 0.1 3.4 4.1 913
Tryptophan % protein 1.4 0.1 1.2 1.6 628
Tyrosine % protein 3.5 0.1 3.2 3.7 672
Valine % protein 4.8 0.3 4.1 5.5 64
 
Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Tannins (eq. tannic acid) g/kg DM 3.6 1
 
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 92.4 91.0 92.4 2 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 92.8 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 18.2 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 13.6 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 80.4 *
a (N) % 28.4 23.0 33.9 2
b (N) % 63.6 61.0 66.2 2
c (N) h-1 0.080 0.058 0.101 2
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 71 *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 65 8 48 74 10 *
 
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 87.2 3.2 85.0 97.7 15 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 17.1 1.0 16.7 20.7 14 *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 15.6 0.4 14.8 15.9 5 *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 9.5 *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 89.6 4.7 78.8 94.2 16 *
 
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 11.2 0.5 10.2 12.1 15 *
AMEn broiler MJ/kg DM 11.0 10.1 11.0 2 *
 
Fish nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, salmonids % 75.0 1
Nitrogen digestibility, salmonids % 89.8 85.5 94.0 2

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

References

Aas et al., 1984; ADAS, 1988; Aderibigbe et al., 1993; AFZ, 2011; Agunbiade et al., 1992; Alawa et al., 1986; Aufrère et al., 1988; Aufrère et al., 1991; Baidoo et al., 1987; Batterham et al., 1989; Batterham et al., 1990; Batterham et al., 1990; Batterham et al., 1991; Bell et al., 1993; Bourdon et al., 1973; Bourdon et al., 1980; Bourdon et al., 1982; Bourdon et al., 1984; Bourdon et al., 1986; Carré et al., 1986; Carvalho Junior et al., 2009; Cave, 1988; Chauvel et al., 1975; CIRAD, 1991; CIRAD, 1994; Cirad, 2008; Cowan et al., 1998; Dale et al., 1985; De Boever et al., 1988; de Lange et al., 1991; Demarquilly, 1987; Dewar, 1967; Donkoh et al., 2009; Eeckhout, 1980; Erdman et al., 1987; Fagbenro et al., 2004; Fondevila et al., 1994; Grala et al., 1999; Green et al., 1987; Green et al., 1989; Guillaume, 1978; Han et al., 1976; Herkelman et al., 1990; Huque et al., 1996; Jacob et al., 1996; Jacobsen et al., 1997; Jagadi et al., 1987; Jongbloed et al., 1990; Jorgensen et al., 1984; Kendall et al., 1991; Kuan et al., 1982; Le Dividich et al., 1975; Lechevestrier, 1996; Leeson et al., 1974; Lekule et al., 1990; Liu et al., 1994; Macgregor et al., 1978; Mancuso, 1996; Marcondes et al., 2009; Marty et al., 1993; Masoero et al., 1994; Maupetit et al., 1992; McNab et al., 1988; Michalet-Doreau et al., 1985; Mondal et al., 2008; Morgan et al., 1975; Mu et al., 2000; Muindi et al., 1981; Muscato et al., 1981; Mustafa et al., 1997; Muztar et al., 1978; Muztar et al., 1981; NAS, 1982; Nengas et al., 1995; Neumark, 1970; Noblet, 2001; Nwokolo et al., 1976; Nwokolo, 1986; Parsons et al., 1981; Perez et al., 1981; Perez et al., 1984; Petit, 1992; Quinsac et al., 2005; Ravindran et al., 1994; Refstie et al., 1999; Robinson et al., 1993; Sanz et al., 1994; Sauer et al., 1989; Schöne et al., 1996; Skiba et al., 2000; Storey et al., 1982; Susmel et al., 1989; Vermorel, 1973; Vieira et al., 2008; Visitpanich et al., 1985; Wood, 1987; Zongo et al., 1993; Zuprizal; Larbier et al., 1991

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

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 90.7 2.5 87.1 94.6 55
Crude protein % DM 49.3 2.5 43.8 53.0 59
Crude fibre % DM 4.9 1.8 1.8 8.6 52
NDF % DM 11.1 11.1 17.8 2 *
ADF % DM 5.9 5.9 11.7 2 *
Lignin % DM 0.5 0.3 0.9 2 *
Ether extract % DM 7.7 1.2 5.8 10.9 50
Ash % DM 6.8 0.3 6.2 7.4 45
Total sugars % DM 9.3 0.5 8.8 9.7 3
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 20.8 *
 
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 4.6 3.8 1.3 14.8 10
Phosphorus g/kg DM 7.2 0.7 6.3 8.2 11
Potassium g/kg DM 21.0 1.9 19.0 22.8 3
Sodium g/kg DM 0.2 1
Magnesium g/kg DM 3.2 3.0 3.5 2
Iron mg/kg DM 129 1
 
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Alanine % protein 4.3 0.1 4.1 4.4 16
Arginine % protein 7.5 0.3 7.1 8.3 14
Aspartic acid % protein 11.6 1
Cystine % protein 1.6 0.1 1.4 1.8 17
Glutamic acid % protein 17.9 1.0 15.2 19.3 16
Glycine % protein 4.2 0.1 4.1 4.4 16
Histidine % protein 2.7 0.1 2.5 2.8 13
Isoleucine % protein 4.6 0.3 4.1 5.1 17
Leucine % protein 7.7 0.2 7.5 8.1 18
Lysine % protein 6.3 0.2 5.6 6.5 19
Methionine % protein 1.4 0.1 1.3 1.6 16
Phenylalanine % protein 5.1 0.1 4.9 5.3 14
Proline % protein 4.8 0.2 4.4 5.1 16
Serine % protein 4.4 0.4 3.8 4.9 12
Threonine % protein 3.7 0.2 3.3 4.0 17
Tryptophan % protein 1.4 0.1 1.1 1.5 12
Tyrosine % protein 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.6 11
Valine % protein 4.5 4.2 4.8 2
 
Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Tannins (eq. tannic acid) g/kg DM 0.8 1
 
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 92.4 80.0 92.4 2 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 93.4 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 19.4 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 14.7 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 80.2 *
a (N) % 24.5 11.4 37.7 2
b (N) % 71.8 62.1 81.5 2
c (N) h-1 0.105 0.047 0.164 2
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 77 55 88 2 *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 70 47 83 2 *
 
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 87.1 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 18.1 *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 16.5 *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 10.0 *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 89.5 *
 
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
AMEn broiler MJ/kg DM 10.7 1

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

References

AFZ, 2011; Balogun et al., 1990; Beran et al., 2005; Broderick et al., 1990; CIRAD, 1991; Cirad, 2008; Holm, 1971; Jacob et al., 1996; Lim Han Kuo, 1967; Mjoun et al., 2010; Mlay et al., 2006; Neumark, 1970; Oluyemi et al., 1976; Ravindran et al., 1994; Valaja et al., 1994

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:43:29

References
References 
Datasheet citation 

Heuzé V., Tran G., Kaushik S., 2017. Soybean meal. Feedipedia, a programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. http://www.feedipedia.org/node/674 Last updated on January 13, 2017, 15:45

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