Animal feed resources information system

Almond hulls and almond by-products


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

Almond, bitter almond, sweet almond (tree) [English], bian tao, amandier, amandier commun  (tree), amande, amande douce, amande amère (fruit)[French], mandel, mandelbaum, bittermandelbaum [German], amendo, amendoeira, amêndoa amarga, amêndoa doce [Portuguese], almendro; almendra [Spanish]; العربية 


Amygdalus communis L., Amygdalus dulcis Mill. (basionym), Prunus amygdalus Batsch, Prunus communis (L.) Arcang., Prunus dulcis var. amara (DC.) Buchheim

Related feed(s) 

The almond tree (Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D. A. Webb) is cultivated worldwide for its valuable edible seed kernels which are highly priced for their numerous culinary uses. Almond kernels are consumed raw, cooked or dry-roasted, sliced, ground or whole, blanched (without the skin) or unblanched (with the skin). They are extensively used in bakery and confectionery, and as an ingredient in manufactured food products due to their physico-chemical, nutritional, and sensorial features. They can be candied or used to make "turron" and other delicacies. Soaking ground kernels in water yields almond milk, a traditional product which is consumed as a substitute for cow milk by people who are lactose-intolerant, have milk allergies or want to avoid dairy products. The kernels are rich in oil which is extracted to be used for culinary and industrial purposes, notably cosmetics.

The fruit of the almond tree is a drupe. Almond kernels are obtained by removing the fruit's envelopes. The fleshy pericarp and mesocarp form the fibrous green-gray hull, and the mature stony endocarp forms the light brown shell. Inside the shell, the kernel is surrounded by a light-brown coloured and thin tegument called testa or skin. The following video presents the almond cultivation in California and the processes undergone by the fruit during the production of almond kernels:

Almond processing yields several by-products that can be used in animal feeding:

  • Culled and discarded almonds are almonds kernels that do not meet commercial quality standards.
  • Almond hulls correspond to the fleshy mesocarp and pericarp of the fruit, that splits open at maturity. Almond hulls represent about 52% of the total fresh weight of the fruit (Prgomet et al., 2017).
  • Almond shells correspond to the hard, lignified endocarp that is removed to obtain the kernels. Almond shells represent 33% of the total fresh weight of the almond fruit (Prgomet et al., 2017).
  • Almond testa or almond skins correspond the tegument of the kernel that is removed when the kernel is blanched. Almond skins account for 4–8% of the fruit (Prgomet et al., 2017).
  • Almond oil cake or almond oil meal is the by-product of the extraction of almond oil, a valuable oil used in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.

Almond consumption almost doubled between the late 1990s and the mid-2010s, as almonds have become inreasingly popular as a "health" food, and as a result the amount of by-products has also increased (Kodad, 2017). The total amount of almond by-products has been estimated to 70-85% of the whole fruits. Almond hulls are the main almond by-product used for animal feeding, which is a good way to reduce their environmental impact. Other almond by-products are less interesting for animal feeding. Culled almonds and almond oil meal still have value for food-related uses and are rarely used for feed. Shells and skins have a limited nutritive value due to their high fibre content and are used to make mulch, animal bedding, or fuel.


The almond tree originated in the arid mountainous regions of Central Asia. Several wild species are native from mountainous areas in western China (Tian Shan mountain), Kurdistan, Turkestan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq (Grasselly, 1976; Kester et al., 1991). Almond is one of the first fruit crops and has been domesticated since the Antiquity, along with date palm, olive, grape, fig, and pomegranate (Janick, 2012). The almond tree is cultivated or grown in semi-wild state in three areas: Asia, Mediterranean Basin, and California (OECD, 2006). The principal almond-producing area of the world is the central valley of California with 77 % of the world production.

In 2019, worldwide almond production was 1.37 million t. California was the first producer with 1.06 million t (77%), followed by Australia (103700 t, 8%), Spain (78089 t, 6%), Turkey (20000 t, 1.5% ), and Italy (18000 t, 1.3%) (INC, 2020). Almond by-products are available where almonds are processed.


Almond harvest

Traditionally, almond harvesting is done by knocking down the dehiscing fruits with poles, and collecting them on nets spread on the ground. This labour-intensive manual operation is now often replaced by self-propelled machines that shake the tree trunks (shakers). In California, the shaker machine is followed by a picker-upper machine that collects the fallen fruits. In Italy, the shaker machine itself collects the fruits using a receptacle shaped like an inverted umbrella (Pascuzzi et al., 2017).

Almond hulling and shelling

After collection, the fruits are dried, stored, and screened to remove impurities (stones, leaves, twigs). The fruits are then dehulled by going through a series of rotating cylinders placed at variable distances that are adapted to fruit size. The resulting almonds are screened, and the hulls are removed by aspiration. For productions that require shelled kernels, the almonds undergo a further run through rotating cylinders that crack and remove the shells. Almond kernels and shells are separated through counter-air flow (US EPA, 1995).

Almond parching

Almonds kernels are peeled (parched) with hot water to produce pure kernels for confectionary and bakery. The resulting skins are rich in fibre and phenols with radical scavenging capacity (Prgomet et al., 2017). Almond skins can be used in functional foods, nutraceuticals, and food additives but do not seem to be used in animal feeding (Chen et al., 2019).

Nutritional aspects
Nutritional attributes 

Almond hulls

Almond hulls have a composition similar to that of citrus pulp: they are rich in sugars (24-34% DM), poor in protein (2-10% DM), with moderate to high amounts of fibre (crude fibre 10-29% DM), and, unlike citrus pulp, rich in lignin (often > 10% DM). They are a variable product, whose quality depends on the variety, cultivation, harvest conditions, and process. Rain-damaged hulls have a reduced energy value due to the loss of sugars. Proper screening is required to remove as much shells as possible, as the presence of this fibrous material decreases the digestibility of the hulls (Asmus, 2015).

Almond kernels and almond oil meal

Almond kernels are primarily an energy source due to their high lipid content (40-60% DM). They are also rich in protein (17-30% DM) and contain negligible amounts of fibre and other carbohydrates. The oil is primarily unsaturated, composes mostly oleic and linoleic fatty acids (Garcia-Lopez et al., 1996). Almond oil cake is almond kernels with most of the oil removed. Depending on the process, it contains from 40-60% DM protein, 8-25% DM of residual oil, with some fibre and carbohydrates (more than in the kernels since they are concentrated by oil extraction).

Almond shells

Almond shells are extremely fibrous material containing about 52-62% DM crude fibre and about 90% NDF.

Potential constraints 


Like other species of the Prunus genus, the seed kernels of the almond fruit contains amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside that can release toxic cyanide through the action of a beta-glucosidase. Kernels and almond oil meal must therefore be cooked thoroughly before being used as feed.

Mold contamination

Almond hulls are sensitive to moisture, and thus to subsequent heating and molding during storage (Asmus, 2015; Miller, 1949).


Almond hulls

Almond hulls can be used as an energy source in ruminants (Alibes et al., 1983). They have been described as a "cross-over" ingredient, which can be used both as a forage (due to its fibre) and a concentrate (due to its energy content) (Asmus, 2015). As they contain little protein, they cannot be fed alone and must be part of a diet containing better protein sources.


Raw and ground almond hulls were reported to be relished by sheep (Miller, 1949).

Digestibility and degradability

In steers, DM digestibility of almond hulls was about 60-61% and the digestible energy (DE) was about 10 MJ/ kg (Aguilar et al., 1984). In sheep, the OM digestibility of coarse almond hulls was 63% and the digestible energy was 12 MJ/kg (Alibes et al., 1983).

The in vitro DM and OM degradability and gas production of dried almonds hulls measured with sheep rumen liquor were respectively 61%, 63% and 69.7 mL/200 g DM. Those values were higher than those observed on green almond hulls and on green and dry leaves of almond tree. Dried almond hulls had also the highest metabolizable energy value (10.1 MJ/kg DM) (Elahi et al., 2017).

Almond hulls were shown to have higher degradation parameters (a, b and c) and higher in situ DM degradability than alfalfa in sheep. The "a" parameter is favourable to good intake. These values advocate for almond hulls to be a potential fair value source of energy for sheep, though their lignin content could be a constraint (Yalchi et al., 2010).


In Iran, almond hulls fed to steers had higher in situ total potentially degradable fraction (a+b) than alfalfa. The "a" value was also higher than for alfalfa which could be in favour of higher intake. However, the degradation rate was however lower in almond hulls than in alfalfa. Overall results showed that almond hulls could be used to feed steers and more broadly ruminants (Jafari et al., 2015).

In the USA, it was possible to use almond hulls as a roughage in fattening steer diets at 7.5 and 15% inclusion in order to replace alfalfa and oat hay. No significant difference could be found in weight gain, intake or feed efficiency. Meat quality parameters remained unaffected by the use of almond hulls as a roughage source (Beckett et al., 1992). It was possible to include up 40% almond hulls in a diet containing alfalfa hay, oat hay, barley, and urea and to maintain steers to maintenance + 10% (Aguilar et al., 1984). However, a later experiment was less positive: 8 month old Hereford steers recorded less intake and 42% lower weight gain when they were fed on 40% almond hulls. The feed efficiency was significantly hampered but the carcass quality remained unchanged. It was suggested to limit almond hulls inclusion to 30% for growing steers (Porte et al., 1991).

Dairy cows

Almond hulls were worth 60% of the energy provided by maize grain and 4.2% of the protein provided by soybean (Grasser et al., 1995). Based on their nutritive value, almond hulls were reported to enter the least-cost calculated rations for high producing cows in California at levels varying from 0.4 kg/day in Northern California to 1 kg in Central California and up to 2.45 kg in southern California out of (Grasser et al., 1995). It has been possible to feed lactating dairy cows on 25% almond hulls (dietary DM) without affecting weight gain and milk production performance (Aguilar et al., 1984).

Almond hulls and ensiled citrus pulp have been assessed on dairy cows for milk production and enteric methane emissions. Almonds hulls (4 kg representing 25% of the dietary DM) or citrus pulp (3 kg representing 18% dietary DM) replaced alfalfa in the cows diet. Almond hulls yielded lower milk (24.6 kg) than the control (27.4) or the ensiled citrus pulp (26.2 kg). Dietary treatment did not affect milk composition parameters like fat, protein, and lactose or fat yields or fatty acid profile (Williams et al., 2018). Formerly, the use of almond hulls or sugarbeet pulp in lactating dairy cows in Japan, resulted in similar milk yield and milk quality (Ueyama, 1979).

In a early report from 1949 in California, it was demonstrated that almond hulls should not be used as a sole feed for dairy cows because it resulted in poor condition and performance. This was likely caused by the poor protein content of the product. It could replace half of the alfalfa hay in dairy cows diet (Miller, 1949).

Concerns about methane emissions have raised awareness about the potentiel effect of some coproducts on the reduction of emissions. Almond hulls have been assessed for their possible effect on methane enteric emissions of cows but did not prove to be beneficial (Williams et al., 2018).


Grinding almond hulls reduced diet digestibility while N supplementation of the diet increased intake (Alibes et al., 1983). In the USA, it was possible to prepare finishing diets containing increasing (0, 5%, 10%) levels of almond hulls as a replacer of alfalfa for Hampshire x Suffolk lambs. The almond hulls diet did not affect daily gain, feed intake, feed efficiency, carcass yield and carcass quality at slaughter (Phillips et al., 2015).

Trials in Italy showed that almond hulls could be included at up to 15% or even 30% dietary level (Vicenti et al., 1993; Vonghia et al., 1989). Farm fattening sheep could be fed during 56 days on isonitrogenous, isoenergetic diets supplemented with either 15% almond hulls or 10% safflower cake or 15% almond hulls+10% safflower cake. All the diets yielded similar weight gain, feed intake and feed conversion efficiency. However, the dressing percentage was higher in for animals fed on safflower cake than those fed on almond hulls. It was concluded that it was possible to feed lambs of both almond hulls and safflower either in combination or alone (Vicenti et al., 1993). It was possible to offer up to 30% almond hulls to finishing lambs provided they could receive enough protein through the diet (Vonghia et al., 1989).

In an early digestibility trial in California, a mixture of ground almond hulls (50% of the diet) and chopped alfalfa hay was readily eaten by finishing lambs. The total digestibility of nutrients was 65% which could compare to the digestibility of culled fruits and advocated for a good nutritive value of ground almond hulls for sheep (Miller, 1949).


In Palestine, feeding finishing lambs on maize-soybean based diet supplemented with ensiled almond hulls had no effect on daily weight gain and final weight gain but it improved feed efficiency and resulted in lower feed cost in the ration (Omar et al., 2018).

Urea treatment

In Iran, urea-treated almond hulls were fed to Shall male lambs at 20% or 40% dietary DM (iso energetic and iso protein) to replace alfalfa. Feeding urea-treated almond hulls had no effect on DM intake. In vivo digestibilities were respectively 82%, 73% and 24% for DM, OM and CP. The substitution of almond hulls for alfalfa had no effect on rumen parameters, protozoa population, and blood parameters. Up to 40% urea-treated almond hulls could be included in sheep diet (Rad et al., 2016).


In California, Alpine goats could be supplemented with almond hulls up to 35% (DM dietary level) as a replacer of alfalfa hay in isonitrogenous, isoenergetic rations mainly based on barley, cottonseed oilmeal, molasses and limestone. Though the digestibility of DM, organic matter, NDF and ash were decreased at the higher level of almond hulls, the DM intake and weight gain increased. No significant difference in milk yield (av. 3.6-3.7 kg/day) or fat content (2.7-2.8%), could be found but protein content was significantly highest with 25% almond hulls and lowest with 35% (3.0 vs. 2.9%). Results indicate that almond hulls can be given at these levels to goats without adversely affecting milk production (Reed et al., 1988).


Almond hulls

Almond hulls are a fibrous material but they are also a source of energy (due to their sugar content) that can be valuable for pigs under adequate conditions. Almond hulls were found to have antioxidant effect in the brain of pigs (Barreira et al., 2010). Growing pigs fed on a basal diet of soybean meal and maize received increasing dietary levels of almond hulls (0, 5, 10, and 15%). No difference in weight gain, or final weight were reported. The level of almond hulls did not alter feed efficiency and carcass characteristics (quality, weight, length). At the higher level of almond hulls inclusion, backfat was unexpectedly reduced in comparison to lower inclusion rates. The dressing percentage was also lower at 15% inclusion. It was concluded that growing pigs could safely receive 15% almond hulls to replace part of the energy in their basal diet, keeping in mind that the diet should be balanced for protein (Calvert et al., 1985).


Almond hulls

Almond hulls have a high sugar content and are thus a valuable alternative source of energy for poultry that could save some costly feed like maize in chicken diets. Up to 9% could be fed to broilers. In an attempt to partially replace maize-soybean meal in chicken basal diet, almond hulls of two almond varieties were ground and extruded (at 120°C), and included at increasing levels (3, 6 and 9%) during 19 days. Increasing levels of extruded almond hulls only slightly decreased animal weight gain, and slightly deteriorated feed efficiency. It was recommended to lower extrusion temperature and to test extruded almond hulls in hens diet because hens could make better use of fibre than broilers (Woo, 2018).

Almond oil meal

In Inra, almond oil meal could be included from 10 to 30% in the diet of Japanese quails diet without any adverse and side effect on feed intake, feed efficiency, animal health parameters and performance or on product quality. The total cholesterol in the yolk was not affected. At the higher level of inclusion, the birds showed lower serum total cholesterol, and lower low density lipoprotein compared to control or 10% almond oil meal. The AMEn values measured in cockerels was 15.6 MJ/kg DM (Arjomandi et al., 2015).


Almond hulls

Almond hulls are sometimes used in Tunisia as source of fibre in commercial rabbit feeds (Lebas, 2010). A study conducted at Oregon University (USA) with rabbit diets containing 0, 20, 40 or 60% of almond hulls replacing alfalfa hay demonstrated that almond hulls could be successfully incorporated into the diet of growing rabbits up to the level of 40% replacement for alfalfa meal without any adverse effects on performance and nutrient digestibility. At 60% almond hulls, feed intake was reduced by about 30%, probably because of a nutritional imbalance and/or too hard pellets (Aderibigbe et al., 1990).

Almond kernel

No information seems available in the international literature on the regular use of almond kernels in rabbit feeding. The daily intake by adult rabbits (1.57 kg) of 2.5 g of almond kernels during 2 month (about 3% of the daily feed intake) decreased significantly serum total cholesterol or triglycerides as expected, and did not induce any health problem (Teotia et al., 1997).


Almond oil meal

In rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), almond oil meal was found to have a high protein digestibility (87-92%) and a slightly lower energy digestibility (69-76%). Apparent digestibility of amino acids was higher than 80% and often 90% for most amino acids (Barrows et al., 2014; Barrows et al., 2015).

Other species 


In adult beagles, a product consisting in almond oil meal mixed with rice hulls was found to have a digestible energy of 9.4 MJ/kg DM (energy digestibility 52%) (Kendal et al., 1982).

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 89.1 5.6 69.5 97.1 29  
Crude protein % DM 5.7 1.6 1.6 10.3 72  
Crude fibre % DM 15.3 4.9 10.4 28.5 22  
Neutral detergent fibre % DM 32 4.2 20.6 39.7 58  
Acid detergent fibre % DM 26 4.4 17.9 34.6 62  
Lignin % DM 10.7 2.9 5 17.8 54  
Ether extract % DM 3 1.5 0.4 8.2 56  
Ash % DM 7.2 2.1 1.7 12.8 70  
Starch (polarimetry) % DM 2.6   1.4 3.2 3  
Total sugars % DM 29.7 3.7 23.9 34.3 8  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 17.6 1.6 15.1 19.7 7 *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 3.2 1.8 0.3 10 40  
Phosphorus g/kg DM 1.8 3.2 0 20 43  
Potassium g/kg DM 26 2.6 20.2 31.3 31  
Sodium g/kg DM 0.26 0.14 0.1 0.6 30  
Chlorine g/kg DM 0.3 0.2 0 0.7 23  
Magnesium g/kg DM 1.4 0.8 0.7 4 34  
Sulfur g/kg DM 0.3 0.05 0.2 0.3 22  
Manganese mg/kg DM 19 11 5 69 32  
Zinc mg/kg DM 18 11 7 63 30  
Copper mg/kg DM 5 5 1 19 32  
Iron mg/kg DM 245 141 74 709 30  
Selenium mg/kg DM 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.1 7  
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 67         *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 11.8         *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 11.3         *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 7.4         *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 53         *
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 6.4         *
AMEn broiler MJ/kg DM 6.2         *
Ruminants nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, ruminants % 63.4 3.3 56.7 66.7 7  
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 59.5         *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 8.7         *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 32.6         *
Dry matter degradability (effective, k=6%) % 68 7 58 76 7 *
Dry matter degradability (effective, k=4%) % 72 7 62 80 7 *
a (DM) % 50 7 42 60 7  
b (DM) % 35 6 24 42 7  
c (DM) h-1 0.066 0.011 0.052 0.08 7  
Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 10.3         *
MEn rabbit MJ/kg DM 10.2         *
Energy digestibility, rabbit % 58.8         *
Nitrogen digestibility, rabbit % 42.4         *

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


AFZ, 2017; Aguilar et al., 1984; Alibes et al., 1983; Alibes et al., 1990; Arosemena et al., 1995; Calixto et al., 1982; DePeters et al., 1997; DePeters et al., 2000; Elahi et al., 2017; Fadel, 1992; Getachew et al., 2004; Hall, 2019; IAV, 2009; Jafari et al., 2015; Obradovic, 1969; Rad et al., 2016; Reed et al., 1988; Tisserand et al., 1989; Vonghia et al., 1989; Weir, 1951; Yalchi et al., 2010

Last updated on 28/09/2020 16:58:43

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 94.5 0.5 93.7 95.3 7  
Crude protein % DM 22.1 4.7 16.9 31.5 7  
Crude fibre % DM 2.5 0.4 1.7 2.9 7  
Neutral detergent fibre % DM 4.7   3.7 5.5 4  
Acid detergent fibre % DM 3.1   2.6 3.6 4  
Lignin % DM 0.7   0.6 0.9 4  
Ether extract % DM 55 7.3 39.1 60.5 7  
Ash % DM 3.6 1.7 2 7.4 7  
Starch (polarimetry) % DM 0.8          
Total sugars % DM 4.6          
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 30.7       1 *
Fatty acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Myristic acid C14:0 % fatty acids 0.04   0 0.07 2  
Palmitic acid C16:0 % fatty acids 5.6   4.4 6.8 2  
Palmitoleic acid C16:1 % fatty acids 0.3   0 0.5 2  
Stearic acid C18:0 % fatty acids 2.3   2.3 2.3 2  
Oleic acid C18:1 % fatty acids 66.5   65.8 67.2 2  
Linoleic acid C18:2 % fatty acids 24   22.8 25.1 2  
Linolenic acid C18:3 % fatty acids 0.3   0 0.5 2  
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 3.4   2.3 5.3 3  
Phosphorus g/kg DM 5.8   4.9 7.2 3  
Potassium g/kg DM 13.4       1  
Sodium g/kg DM 2.45       1  
Magnesium g/kg DM 1.7       1  
Zinc mg/kg DM 82       1  
Iron mg/kg DM 45       1  
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 80       1  
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 24.5         *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 23.7         *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 17         *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 76       1  
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 23.2         *
AMEn broiler MJ/kg DM 21.9         *
Ruminants nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, ruminants % 87.6         *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 93.4         *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 23.4         *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 75.2         *
Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 29         *
MEn rabbit MJ/kg DM 28         *
Energy digestibility, rabbit % 94.6         *
Nitrogen digestibility, rabbit % 81.6         *

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


Calixto et al., 1983; Elezuo et al., 2011; Madaan et al., 1984; Madawala et al., 2012; Orsavova et al., 2015; Sol et al., 2016; Watt et al., 1950

Last updated on 28/09/2020 17:21:05

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 90.7 3 84.8 93.2 8  
Crude protein % DM 2.4 0.9 1.4 3.8 8  
Crude fibre % DM 57.9 3.2 51.8 62 7  
Neutral detergent fibre % DM 90.1          
Acid detergent fibre % DM 62   57.2 66 4  
Lignin % DM 22.3   20.1 24.6 4  
Ether extract % DM 0.5   0.2 1.1 4  
Ash % DM 2.5 2.3 1.5 6.9 5  
Insoluble ash % DM 0.2         *
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 19.4         *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 1.8       1  
Phosphorus g/kg DM 0.2       1  
Potassium g/kg DM 7.2   4.3 10.8 3  
Sodium g/kg DM 0.43       1  
Chlorine g/kg DM 0.4       1  
Iron mg/kg DM 35          
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 20         *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 3.9         *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 3.5         *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 1.2         *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 5.2         *
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 0.7         *
AMEn broiler MJ/kg DM 0.7         *
Ruminants nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, ruminants % 27.8         *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 25.5         *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 4         *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 0          
Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 3.7         *
MEn rabbit MJ/kg DM 3.6         *
Energy digestibility, rabbit % 19.1         *
Nitrogen digestibility, rabbit % 40.3         *

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


AFZ, 2017; Jafari et al., 2015

Last updated on 29/09/2020 16:57:52

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 92.4 1.7 89.3 95 18  
Crude protein % DM 50.1 5.4 40.3 61.5 17  
Crude fibre % DM 8   5.9 10 2  
Neutral detergent fibre % DM 18.7         *
Acid detergent fibre % DM 13.1         *
Ether extract % DM 12.6 5.7 8.2 24.9 17  
Ash % DM 7.5 1.1 5.1 9 13  
Total sugars % DM 17.1 3.1 13.3 23.2 12  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 22.1         *
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Alanine g/16g N 4.5   3.9 5.3 4  
Arginine g/16g N 10   9 11.1 4  
Aspartic acid g/16g N 11   10.2 12.7 4  
Glutamic acid g/16g N 28.4   24.7 33 4  
Glycine g/16g N 6.6   5.2 7.7 4  
Histidine g/16g N 0.8   0.6 0.9 3  
Isoleucine g/16g N 2.1   1.6 2.4 4  
Leucine g/16g N 5.8   5.3 6.3 4  
Lysine g/16g N 2   1.8 2.2 4  
Methionine g/16g N 0.5   0.2 0.6 4  
Phenylalanine g/16g N 4.4   3.9 4.7 4  
Phenylalanine+tyrosine g/16g N 6.1   4.9 7 4 *
Proline g/16g N 3.7   3.5 4.2 4  
Serine g/16g N 5   3.8 6.3 4  
Threonine g/16g N 3   2.4 3.6 4  
Tyrosine g/16g N 1.8   1 2.5 4  
Valine g/16g N 2.8   2.4 3 4  
Fatty acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Myristic acid C14:0 % fatty acids 0.04   0 0.07 2  
Palmitic acid C16:0 % fatty acids 5.6   4.4 6.8 2  
Palmitoleic acid C16:1 % fatty acids 0.3   0 0.5 2  
Stearic acid C18:0 % fatty acids 2.3   2.3 2.3 2  
Oleic acid C18:1 % fatty acids 66.5   65.8 67.2 2  
Linoleic acid C18:2 % fatty acids 24   22.8 25.1 2  
Linolenic acid C18:3 % fatty acids 0.3   0 0.5 2  
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 6.8 1.8 5.8 10 5  
Phosphorus g/kg DM 13 3.3 10.4 17.7 5  
Potassium g/kg DM 14.2   14.2 14.3 2  
Sodium g/kg DM 0.09   0.01 0.19 4  
Magnesium g/kg DM 7.1   5.9 8.5 4  
Sulfur g/kg DM 2.3   1.8 2.9 4  
Manganese mg/kg DM 44   43 48 4  
Zinc mg/kg DM 65   57 77 4  
Copper mg/kg DM 20   17 23 4  
Iron mg/kg DM 73   28 138 4  
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 80         *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 17.7         *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 16.3         *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 11         *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 100         *
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 14.5         *
AMEn broiler MJ/kg DM 13.9         *
Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 16.8         *
Energy digestibility, rabbit % 76.1         *

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


AFZ, 2017; Arjomandi et al., 2015; Barrows et al., 2015; Houmy et al., 2020

Last updated on 28/09/2020 18:06:04

Datasheet citation 

Heuzé V., Tran G., Lebas F., 2020. Almond hulls and almond by-products. Feedipedia, a programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. https://www.feedipedia.org/node/27 Last updated on September 29, 2020, 18:13