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. High-protein types are obtained from dehulled seeds and contain 47-49% protein and 3% crude fibre (as fed basis). Other types of soybean meal include the hulls or part of the hulls and contain less than 47% protein and more than 6% crude fibre. 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 243 million tons and accounted for 62.5% of oil meals (Soybean Meal Info Center, 2018). Main producers were China (76 MT), the USA (44 MT), Argentina (33 MT), Brazil (33 MT), and the EU-28 (12.5 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). In the region, the demand for partially defatted soybean meal from labelled non-GMO soybean was reported to be about 10% of the total amount of imported soybean equivalent (3.4 MT). This demand also addresses the need for organic farming, or locally produced soybeans in 2020 in the EU (Royer et al., 2020).

Processes 

There are 3 main processes to extract soybean oil:

  • The most common process consists in extracting oil from soybean flakes by solvent. In the USA, virtually all soybeans (99%) are solvent-extracted. This method is the most efficient and about 1.5% oil is left in the resulting soybean meal.
  • The second method consists in a mechanical extraction by a screw press (expeller). This method yields less oil and a soybean meal containing more than 5% residual oil.
  • The third method combines extruding and expelling of soybean flakes, and uses solvent for oil extraction (Johnson et al., 2018).

Before extraction, the soybean seeds undergoes differents treatments aimed at increasing oil extraction and soybean meal quality (Johnson et al., 2018; Dunford, 2012).

Pre-extraction treatments

Cooking

Cooking the seeds has positive effects on: moisture conditioning of seeds and easing dehulling, oil viscosity reduction, increasing plasticity of seed, breaking of cell walls, protein clotting by denaturation, sterilization and deactivation of thermosensitive enzymes, and destruction of thermolabile antinutritional factors (ANFs) (Dunford, 2012; Laisney 1992).

Crushing and flaking

Crushing and flaking operations promote solvent extraction step by changing the permeability of the soybean flakes (Dunford, 2012).

Dehulling

Dehulling is a facultative process that separates the oil-rich kernel from hulls which represents 8% of the seed and are mainly fibrous containing limited amount of oil. Dehulling also removes antinutritional factors.

Extraction processes

Solvent extraction

In the solvent extraction process, soybeans are cracked, dehulled (optional), heated, flaked and passed (or not) through a kind of extruder called an expander. The expander produce a porous pellet with increased cell rupture and greater density. This makes oil extraction by solvent easier (usually hexane but extraction with ethanol or with mixtures of hexane and ethanol are also possible) (Dunford, 2012). The use of the expander reduces the quantity of solvent required. The extraction is done by percolation of solvent through a bed of flakes (expanded or not): the lipid material is solubilised with the solvent, the mixture percolates and is collected separately. The extracted flakes  called spent flakes are further dried to eliminate the solvent, then toasted and ground. The soybeans may 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., 2018).

Mechanical extraction
Screw pressing

In the mechanical process, 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., 2018). 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. 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., 2018).

Removal of antinutritional factors and improvement of protein solubility

While conventional extraction of oil from soybeans seeds is effective in removing ANFs, this is not true for mechanical treatments that do not use high temperatures. Extruding prior to pressing may help solving this issue in expeller soybean meal as it removes as much ANFs as conventional solvent extraction (Blair, 2008).

Pre-extraction treatments of expeller soybean meal
Physical/thermal treatments

A variety of physical/thermal treatments can be used to remove ANFs in expeller soybean meal. In France, combinations of dehulling, flaking, and cooking as been reported (Quinsac, 2015). The overall choice of extraction process is guided by technico-economical evaluation. In places where only small amounts of soybeans must be crushed, both processes of extruding-expelling and screw pressing can be valuable, they can be precedented by cooking treatments (Quinsac et al., 2015).

Tail-end treatments
Enzyme addition and fermentation

Enzyme addition and fermentation of soybean meal have been done in order to remove antinutritional factors like NSPs and antigenic proteins from soybean meal but these treatments resulted in inconsistent improvements of soybean meal nutritive value (energy and digestibility of aminoacids) in monogastric animals (Navarro et al., 2017; Sotak et al., 2014; Cervantes-Pahm et al., 2010; Graham et al., 2002).

Fine grinding

Fine grinding (also described as "micronization") of soybean meal and of full-fat soybean have been reported to increase ileal digestibilities of amino acids of those products in broilers. The fine grinding of soybean meal result in higher amino acid digestibilities than those of full-fat soybeans (Valencia et al., 2009).

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% as fed) 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)

Some carbohydrate components in the feed may interfere with digestion. For instance, soybean meal may contain a substantial level of α-galactosaccharide which has been associated with reduced digestibility of soybean meal-based diets (Araba et al., 1994). 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. A comparison between conventional soybean meal and low-oligosaccharide soybean meals have shown an average difference of 7% in total metabolizable energy (TME), and up to 9.8% when the comparison was done with the lowest-oligosaccharide containing soybean meals, in roosters (Parsons et al., 2000).

Enzyme addition (xylanase, protease and amylase) in poultry and pig diets could be a good way to limit NSP issues (Dourado et al., 2011). Birds cannot degrade α-1:6 galactoside, thus the addition of galactosidase could alleviate this problem (Leeson et al., 2005; Zanella et al., 1999). However, in a treatment with α-galactosidase optimized for oligosaccharide degradation, raffinose and stachyose were effectively reduced by 69 and 54%, respectively, but the diets containing enzyme-treated soybean meal failed to improve growth performance (Graham et al., 2002).

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 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 many 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).

Pre-extraction treatments have shown to be effective in improving soybean meal nutritive value.

Dehulling

It was shown that the dehulling of soy beans prior to making conventional soybean meal had positive effects on layers who produced significantly bigger eggs with stronger eggshell when they were fed on dehulled soybean meal (Park et al., 2002). Broilers fed on dehulled soybean meal also linearly increased their body weight gain with the provision of soybean meal in their diet and their gain per feed ratio was higher (Park et al., 2002).

Recently, it was shown that dehulling soybeans prior to Extrusion-Pressing or prior to Flaking-Cooking-Pressing had no effect on starter broilers (1-14d) and growing broilers (14-28d) for feed intake (FI), average daily gain (ADG) and the feed: gain ratio (FCR) (Royer et al., 2020). Dehulling had only significant advantage on carcass yield, possibly resulting from adaptive growth of gizzard and proventriculus (Royer et al., 2020).

Heat treatments

Heating soybeans prior to oil extraction or heating soybean meal is very important as heat can destroy heat labile antinutritional factors present in soybean seeds. Heat has also some effects on protein solubility of soybean meal, which is important for its nutritive value. It has been demonstrated that autoclaving raw hexane-extracted soybeans or soybean meal increased the growth of broilers fed on this raw material by 140 to 150% (Dozier et al., 2011). Cooking, autoclaving and microwaving were referred to as the most successful heat procedures that may have an important role in removing ANFs in peas (Habiba, 2002). In soybean, heat procedures like extrusion, cooking, toasting and roasting have been reported to be efficient in reducing trypsin inhibitor activity (TIA) and phytic acid (PA) in soybeans (Ari et al., 2012).

In broiler chicken, feeding heat-processed soybean meal yielded higher final body weight and higher BWG and the broilers had lower feed: gain ratio compared with broiler fed on raw soybean meal. However, no differences were found among heating procedures (autoclaving, roasting and microwaving) on growth performance of animals for the starter, grower and finisher periods (Tousi-Mojarrad et al., 2014).

On the contrary, overheating has deleterious effect on soybean meal nutritive value and it has been recommended not to overheat soybean meal.

Nevertheless, the method, and the combination of time and temperature need to be optimized since under-heating results in poor destruction of  ANFs while over-heating causes unavailability of some amino acids. It has been suggested that the digestibility and availability of essential amino acids are increased when autoclaving occurs at 121°C further than 20 min, causing higher growth performance of broiler chickens thaks to higher destruction of ANFs by the heat treatment, while the excessive hot processing when SBM was autoclaved at 121°C for 40 min decreased digestibility and availability of lysine and cystine (Parsons et al., 1991) and resulted in lower growth performanceof broiler chickens (Tousi-Mojarrad et al., 2014: Anderson-Hafermann et al., 1992). An other study suggested that over-heating occurred beoyond 10 minutes of autoclaving: subsequently soybean meal nutritive value was impaired (Araba et al., 1990).

In the USA, approximately 66% of protein in broiler feeds comes from soybean meal (Dozier et al., 2011). The reference soybean meal used in poultry feeding in the world is the solvent-extracted soybean meal.

However, the recent development of organic poultry production led to alternative processes like extrusion-pression (expelling) and more energetic soybean meal.

Extrusion can be done at different temperatures and it was shown that at the lowest temperatures (121 and 135°C) the resulting soybean meal could be considered underprocessed, with high urease activity and low amino acid digestibilities in roosters. It was then suggested to extrude soybeans at temperatures higher than 135°C and no over processing was noted at 160°C (Karr-Lilienthal et al., 2006).

Amino acid true digestibilities of expeller-extruded soybean meal were lower than those of solvent-extracted soybean meal referred to in the NRC. However, it was found that broilers fed on such expeller-extruded soybean meal had no difference in growth performance over a 49-day period but chicken had lower breast meat yield (24.95 vs. 26.30%) (Powell et al., 2011). A further experiment reported that CP ileal digestibility and amino acids ileal digestibility of extruded soybean meal was higher that those of solvent extracted soybean meal. Daily weight gains and feed intakes were increased and FCR was improved by the use of extruded soybean meal which was thus considered valuable for poultry feeding (Jahanian et al., 2016).

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 88 0.8 86.3 95.9 1259  
Crude protein % DM 55.2 1.6 48.9 58.5 1372  
Crude fibre % DM 4.4 0.6 1.6 5.7 382  
Neutral detergent fibre % DM 10.5 1.7 6.2 12.1 19 *
Acid detergent fibre % DM 5.7 1.2 3.6 8.1 11 *
Lignin % DM 0.4 0.3 0.1 1.2 25  
Ether extract % DM 1.7 0.6 0.4 3.8 1130  
Ash % DM 7.3 0.5 6.1 9.2 315  
Insoluble ash % DM 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.2 8  
Starch (polarimetry) % DM 6.3 1.5 3.4 9.9 40  
Starch (enzymatic) % DM 1.1   0.4 2.1 3  
Total sugars % DM 10.8 1 8.6 12.4 29  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 19.7 0.3 19.2 20.8 20 *
               
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Alanine g/16g N 4.3 0.3 3.8 5.8 89 *
Arginine g/16g N 7.3 0.5 6 9.1 90 *
Aspartic acid g/16g N 11.3 0.6 9 14.1 87 *
Cystine g/16g N 1.6 0.1 0.8 1.7 93 *
Glutamic acid g/16g N 17.9 1 15 21.7 87 *
Glycine g/16g N 4.2 0.2 3.8 4.9 89 *
Histidine g/16g N 2.7 0.2 2.4 3.2 80 *
Isoleucine g/16g N 4.6 0.2 3.8 5.1 81 *
Leucine g/16g N 7.7 0.4 6.5 8.7 86 *
Lysine g/16g N 6.2 0.3 5.2 7 164 *
Methionine g/16g N 1.4 0.1 1 1.6 115 *
Methionine+cystine g/16g N 3 0.2 1.8 3.1 93 *
Phenylalanine g/16g N 5.1 0.2 4.4 5.7 91 *
Phenylalanine+tyrosine g/16g N 8.6 0.5 7.7 10.1 71 *
Proline g/16g N 5 0.3 4.5 6.2 45 *
Serine g/16g N 4.6 0.4 4.2 6.1 91 *
Threonine g/16g N 3.8 0.3 3.4 4.6 92 *
Tryptophan g/16g N 1.4 0.07 1.1 1.4 52 *
Tyrosine g/16g N 3.5 0.3 2.9 4.4 72 *
Valine g/16g N 4.8 0.3 4.1 5.8 89 *
               
Fatty acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Myristic acid C14:0 % fatty acids 0.2 0.3 0 1.1 14  
Palmitic acid C16:0 % fatty acids 11.2 2.2 9.6 20.8 22  
Palmitoleic acid C16:1 % fatty acids 0.1 0.08 0 0.2 7  
Stearic acid C18:0 % fatty acids 3.8 0.4 3.2 4.8 22  
Oleic acid C18:1 % fatty acids 23.1 1.6 19.8 27.3 23  
Linoleic acid C18:2 % fatty acids 54 2.9 42.9 58.2 22  
Linolenic acid C18:3 % fatty acids 7.2 0.9 4.8 8.7 22  
               
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 3.9 0.7 2 6 359 *
Phosphorus g/kg DM 7.1 0.6 5.7 8.9 362 *
Potassium g/kg DM 24.3         *
Sodium g/kg DM 0.13 0.18 0.01 0.61 24  
Chlorine g/kg DM 1 1 0.4 3.2 7  
Magnesium g/kg DM 3.2 0.3 3 3.9 7 *
Sulfur g/kg DM 4.6 0.3 4.4 5.1 6  
Manganese mg/kg DM 44 12 25 75 10  
Zinc mg/kg DM 57 11 45 77 9  
Copper mg/kg DM 17 1 15 19 8  
Iron mg/kg DM 201          
Selenium mg/kg DM 0.5   0.4 0.5 2  
               
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 87.5       1 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 17.3       1 *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 15.8         *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 9.8         *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 90.1       1 *
               
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 11.4         *
AMEn broiler MJ/kg DM 11.2         *
               
Ruminants nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, ruminants % 91.1       1 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 91.6       1 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 13.4         *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 80.2         *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 63       1 *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 71         *
a (N) % 13       1  
b (N) % 85       1  
c (N) h-1 0.085       1  
Dry matter degradability (effective, k=6%) % 67       1 *
Dry matter degradability (effective, k=4%) % 73       1 *
a (DM) % 26       1  
b (DM) % 71       1  
c (DM) h-1 0.08       1  
               
Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 17.2         *
MEn rabbit MJ/kg DM 15         *
Energy digestibility, rabbit % 87.1         *
Nitrogen digestibility, rabbit % 79.9         *

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

References

Adamidou et al., 2009; ADAS, 1988; Adedokun et al., 2008; Adedokun et al., 2014; AFZ, 2017; Anon., 2001; Barrows et al., 2015; Bourdon et al., 1980; Bourdon et al., 1982; Bourdon et al., 1984; Bryden et al., 2009; Carré et al., 1986; Cave, 1988; CIRAD, 1991; CIRAD, 2008; Coca-Sinova et al., 2008; Dadalt, 2015; Dale et al., 1985; Dewar, 1967; Eeckhout et al., 1994; Frikha et al., 2012; Garcia et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2006; Jacobsen et al., 1997; Jongbloed et al., 1990; Kong et al., 2013; Macgregor et al., 1978; Marty et al., 1993; Maupetit et al., 1992; Michalet-Doreau et al., 1985; Mondal et al., 2008; Muscato et al., 1981; NAS, 1982; Parsons et al., 1981; Perez et al., 1981; Perez et al., 1984; Ravindran et al., 1994; Ravindran et al., 2006; St-Hilaire et al., 2007; Szczurek, 2009; Urbaityte et al., 2009

Last updated on 03/02/2020 21:52:54

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 88 0.7 80.1 96.3 9654  
Crude protein % DM 52.6 1.1 43.8 58.4 9722  
Crude fibre % DM 6.8 0.7 4.8 10.7 3328  
Neutral detergent fibre % DM 14.2 2.9 6.6 19.5 269 *
Acid detergent fibre % DM 8.4 2.3 3.4 14.8 238 *
Lignin % DM 0.6 0.4 0.1 1.8 213  
Ether extract % DM 1.8 0.5 0.3 5.5 7801  
Ash % DM 7.1 0.6 5.7 11.2 2899  
Insoluble ash % DM 0.6 0.5 0 2.4 72  
Starch (polarimetry) % DM 5.7 1.4 0.2 11.4 367  
Starch (enzymatic) % DM 1.9   1.4 2.7 4  
Total sugars % DM 9.2 1 7.2 13.7 211  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 19.7 0.6 17 22.6 136 *
               
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Alanine g/16g N 4.4 0.2 3.7 5.6 151 *
Arginine g/16g N 7.3 0.3 6.2 8.3 154 *
Aspartic acid g/16g N 11.3 0.4 9.6 12.8 139 *
Cystine g/16g N 1.6 0.08 1.2 1.9 147 *
Glutamic acid g/16g N 17.8 0.5 15.2 18.9 147 *
Glycine g/16g N 4.2 0.1 3.8 4.8 150 *
Histidine g/16g N 2.7 0.1 2.3 3 158 *
Isoleucine g/16g N 4.6 0.2 3.6 5.2 158 *
Leucine g/16g N 7.6 0.2 7.1 8.3 156 *
Lysine g/16g N 6.2 0.2 5.3 7 212 *
Methionine g/16g N 1.4 0.06 1 1.5 155 *
Methionine+cystine g/16g N 3 0.1 2.3 3.6 147 *
Phenylalanine g/16g N 5.1 0.1 4.5 5.6 156 *
Phenylalanine+tyrosine g/16g N 8.6 0.2 7.8 9.7 114 *
Proline g/16g N 5 0.2 4.4 5.7 142 *
Serine g/16g N 4.7 0.2 3.9 6 148 *
Threonine g/16g N 3.8 0.1 3.3 4.5 156 *
Tryptophan g/16g N 1.4 0.04 1.2 1.5 123 *
Tyrosine g/16g N 3.5 0.1 3.1 4.1 117 *
Valine g/16g N 4.8 0.2 4.4 5.6 156 *
               
Fatty acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Myristic acid C14:0 % fatty acids 0.2 0.3 0 1.1 14  
Palmitic acid C16:0 % fatty acids 11.2 2.2 9.6 20.8 22  
Palmitoleic acid C16:1 % fatty acids 0.1 0.08 0 0.2 7  
Stearic acid C18:0 % fatty acids 3.8 0.4 3.2 4.8 22  
Oleic acid C18:1 % fatty acids 23.1 1.6 19.8 27.3 23  
Linoleic acid C18:2 % fatty acids 54 2.9 42.9 58.2 22  
Linolenic acid C18:3 % fatty acids 7.2 0.9 4.8 8.7 22  
               
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 3.8 0.9 1.6 7.9 1729 *
Phosphorus g/kg DM 7.1 0.6 4.4 8.1 47 *
Potassium g/kg DM 23.8 1.4 20.9 28.6 76 *
Sodium g/kg DM 0.16 0.25 0 1.49 275  
Chlorine g/kg DM 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.9 95  
Magnesium g/kg DM 3.1 0.4 2.5 4.1 21 *
Sulfur g/kg DM 4.5 0.2 4.3 4.9 5  
Manganese mg/kg DM 45 13 25 88 66  
Zinc mg/kg DM 62 39 29 303 43  
Copper mg/kg DM 19 7 7 61 44  
Iron mg/kg DM 274 166 13 617 18  
Selenium mg/kg DM 0.2          
               
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 85 4.7 72.5 97.7 28 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 16.8 1.1 14.6 20.7 34 *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 15.3         *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 9.4         *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 86.7 3.9 78.8 94.2 24 *
               
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 10.9 1.4 9.1 16.5 24 *
AMEn broiler MJ/kg DM 10.7   9.4 11.1 4 *
               
Ruminants nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, ruminants % 90.3   86 91.8 3 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 90.7         *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 13.3         *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 80.2       1 *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 63 10 45 93 39 *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 71   63 86 4 *
a (N) % 13       1  
b (N) % 85       1  
c (N) h-1 0.085       1  
Dry matter degradability (effective, k=6%) % 67 17 40 98 14 *
Dry matter degradability (effective, k=4%) % 73   72 85 4 *
a (DM) % 26 10 5 47 12  
b (DM) % 71 11 52 93 12  
c (DM) h-1 0.08 0.047 0.017 0.151 12  
               
Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 16.4       1 *
MEn rabbit MJ/kg DM 14.2         *
Energy digestibility, rabbit % 83.1       1 *
Nitrogen digestibility, rabbit % 82.8       1 *

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

References

Abdu Ali Mussa et al., 2016; ADAS, 1988; Adeola, 2003; AFZ, 2017; Aguilera et al., 1992; Agunbiade et al., 1992; Akinleye et al., 2012; Allan et al., 2000; Anon., 2001; Arieli et al., 1989; Arnaud et al., 2005; Aufrère et al., 1988; Aufrère et al., 1991; Bach Knudsen, 1997; Baidoo et al., 1987; Barbour et al., 1991; Barnett et al., 1981; Barrows et al., 2015; Batajoo et al., 1998; Batterham et al., 1984; Batterham et al., 1989; Batterham et al., 1990; Batterham, 1979; Baumgärtel et al., 2007; Bell et al., 1993; Beran et al., 2005; Bochi-Brum et al., 1999; Bootwalla, 2009; Borgeson et al., 2006; Bryan et al., 2019; Bryden et al., 2009; Bui Huy Nhu Phuc, 2006; Burgoon et al., 1991; Burr et al., 2011; Cappellozza et al., 2012; Chhay Ty et al., 2007; Christodoulou et al., 2005; Christodoulou et al., 2006; Chumpawadee et al., 2005; Church et al., 1982; CIRAD, 1991; CIRAD, 1994; CIRAD, 2008; Clark et al., 1993; Coca-Sinova et al., 2008; Costa et al., 2010; Da et al., 2013; De Boever et al., 1984; De Boever et al., 1994; De Silva et al., 1990; Demarquilly, 1987; Donkoh et al., 2009; Dust et al., 2005; Eeckhout et al., 1994; Eeckhout, 1980; El Zubeir et al., 1992; Erdman et al., 1987; Fan et al., 1995; Fekete et al., 1986; Fialho et al., 1995; Foltyn et al., 2015; Fondevila et al., 1994; Frikha et al., 2012; Getachew et al., 2004; Gilaverte et al., 2011; Gowda et al., 2004; Green et al., 1989; Guedes et al., 1996; Guillaume, 1978; Guimaraes et al., 2008; Habib et al., 2013; Haddad et al., 2000; Hadjipanayiotou, 2002; Hajen et al., 1993; Henderson et al., 1984; Horani et al., 1975; Huhtanen et al., 1988; Hurtaud et al., 2007; Huston et al., 1971; Israelsen et al., 1978; Jagadi et al., 1987; Jondreville et al., 1991; Jongbloed et al., 1990; Kan et al., 1988; Kandylis et al., 1986; Karlsson et al., 2009; Karunajeewa et al., 1987; Khandaker et al., 1996; Kuan et al., 1982; Kumar et al., 2007; Lawrence, 1978; Le Dividich et al., 1975; Lechevestrier, 1996; Lee et al., 2016; Lekule et al., 1990; Lessire et al., 2009; Lessire, 1990; Li et al., 2013; Lima et al., 2013; Lindberg et al., 1982; Lindberg, 1981; Lindberg, 1981; Livingstone et al., 1977; Lund et al., 2006; Mancuso, 1996; Mantysaari et al., 1989; May et al., 1971; Mohamed et al., 1988; Montero-Lagunes et al., 2011; Moreira et al., 2002; Morgan et al., 1984; Morse et al., 1992; Mustafa et al., 1997; Muztar et al., 1981; Nadeem et al., 2005; Nehring et al., 1963; Noblet et al., 1997; Noblet, 2001; Noftsger et al., 2000; Nouri-Emamzadeh et al., 2008; Nwokolo et al., 1976; Okine et al., 2005; Oksbjerg et al., 1988; Orskov et al., 1992; O'Shea et al., 1986; Partanen, 1994; Polan et al., 1985; Qiao ShiYan et al., 2004; Refstie et al., 1999; Saki et al., 2008; Schöne et al., 1996; Selle et al., 2003; Sharma et al., 1980; Shi et al., 1993; Soliva et al., 2005; Soren et al., 2009; Storey et al., 1982; Stutts et al., 1988; Sullivan et al., 1989; Swanek et al., 2001; Thacker et al., 2007; Tiwari et al., 2006; Todorov et al., 2016; Treviño et al., 2000; Valencia et al.., 2009; Van Cauwenberghe et al., 1996; Velez et al., 1991; Vérité et al., 1990; Vermorel, 1973; Vervaeke et al., 1989; Visitpanich et al., 1985; Wainman et al., 1984; Wang Dun et al., 2005; Weiss et al., 1989; Whitehead et al., 1982; Wiryawan, 1997; Wiseman et al., 1992; Wohlt et al., 1991; Woods et al., 1999; Woods et al., 2003; Yin et al., 1993; Zhu et al., 1990; Zongo et al., 1993; Zuprizal; Larbier et al., 1991

Last updated on 03/02/2020 21:56:15

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 87.7 0.9 85.1 93.5 803  
Crude protein % DM 49.5 1.7 44.1 54.9 818  
Crude fibre % DM 7.2 0.9 4.9 11.2 589  
Neutral detergent fibre % DM 14.8 2.3 10.9 20.7 38 *
Acid detergent fibre % DM 8.9 2.2 7.6 15.2 39 *
Lignin % DM 0.8 0.5 0.3 2.1 25  
Ether extract % DM 1.9 0.6 0.6 5.1 603  
Ash % DM 7.4 0.7 5.8 10 216  
Insoluble ash % DM 0.3 0.3 0.03 0.8 5  
Starch (polarimetry) % DM 6.8 1.3 5.2 9.7 20  
Starch (enzymatic) % DM 0.9   0.8 1.1 4  
Total sugars % DM 10.6 1.2 8.3 12.6 20  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 19.5 0.6 17.8 20.8 16 *
               
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Alanine g/16g N 4.4 0.4 3.6 5.3 46 *
Arginine g/16g N 7.3 0.4 6 8.2 49 *
Aspartic acid g/16g N 11.3 0.6 10 12.9 47 *
Cystine g/16g N 1.5 0.1 1.1 1.6 35 *
Glutamic acid g/16g N 17.8 1.4 14.4 23.3 48 *
Glycine g/16g N 4.2 0.2 3.4 4.8 46 *
Histidine g/16g N 2.7 0.2 2.3 3.1 31 *
Isoleucine g/16g N 4.6 0.4 4.2 6.1 32 *
Leucine g/16g N 7.6 0.4 6.4 8.6 36 *
Lysine g/16g N 6.2 0.3 5.6 6.6 52 *
Methionine g/16g N 1.4 0.2 1.1 1.8 45 *
Methionine+cystine g/16g N 3 0.2 2.5 3.3 35 *
Phenylalanine g/16g N 5.1 0.2 4.5 5.5 49 *
Phenylalanine+tyrosine g/16g N 8.6 0.4 7.7 9.6 24 *
Proline g/16g N 5 0.3 4.5 5.7 13 *
Serine g/16g N 4.8 0.3 4.4 5.5 46 *
Threonine g/16g N 3.9 0.2 3.4 4.5 49 *
Tryptophan g/16g N 1.4 0.05 1.3 1.4 20 *
Tyrosine g/16g N 3.5 0.3 3.1 4.3 24 *
Valine g/16g N 4.8 0.3 4.2 5.5 49 *
               
Fatty acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Myristic acid C14:0 % fatty acids 0.2 0.3 0 1.1 14  
Palmitic acid C16:0 % fatty acids 11.2 2.2 9.6 20.8 22  
Palmitoleic acid C16:1 % fatty acids 0.1 0.08 0 0.2 7  
Stearic acid C18:0 % fatty acids 3.8 0.4 3.2 4.8 22  
Oleic acid C18:1 % fatty acids 23.1 1.6 19.8 27.3 23  
Linoleic acid C18:2 % fatty acids 54 2.9 42.9 58.2 22  
Linolenic acid C18:3 % fatty acids 7.2 0.9 4.8 8.7 22  
               
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 3.9 1.1 1.7 7.4 61 *
Phosphorus g/kg DM 7.1 0.6 6.2 9.1 60 *
Potassium g/kg DM 24.5 1.3 22.4 27 17 *
Sodium g/kg DM 0.09 0.08 0 0.2 26  
Chlorine g/kg DM 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.9 7  
Magnesium g/kg DM 3.3 0.3 2.4 3.4 10 *
Sulfur g/kg DM 4.5          
Manganese mg/kg DM 36 11 23 53 9  
Zinc mg/kg DM 41 8 28 48 5  
Copper mg/kg DM 16   12 18 4  
Iron mg/kg DM 274          
Selenium mg/kg DM 0.2          
               
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 84.6         *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 16.5         *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 15.1       1 *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 9.4         *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 86.1         *
               
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 10.8         *
AMEn broiler MJ/kg DM 10.6         *
               
Ruminants nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, ruminants % 90.2         *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 90.2 3.3 86 97 8 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 13.2 0.5 13 14.5 8 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 80.1         *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 63 8 56 77 5 *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 71         *
a (N) % 13       1  
b (N) % 85       1  
c (N) h-1 0.085       1  
Dry matter degradability (effective, k=6%) % 67   56 75 4 *
Dry matter degradability (effective, k=4%) % 73       1 *
a (DM) % 26   23 27 3  
b (DM) % 71          
c (DM) h-1 0.08   0.06 0.147 3  
               
Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 15.9   14.9 18.4 2 *
MEn rabbit MJ/kg DM 13.8         *
Energy digestibility, rabbit % 81.3   76.2 90 2 *
Nitrogen digestibility, rabbit % 83.7   79.4 89.7 2 *

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

References

ADAS, 1991; AFZ, 2017; Agunbiade et al., 2004; Alcalde et al., 2011; Al-Marzooqi et al., 2015; Anon., 2001; Brestenský et al., 2013; Bryden et al., 2009; Chiou et al., 1995; CIRAD, 1991; CIRAD, 2008; Eeckhout et al., 1994; Ezequiel et al., 1999; Fagbenro et al., 2004; Goes et al., 2010; Henry et al., 1973; Lebas et al., 2012; Maertens et al., 1985; Maupetit et al., 1992; Oliveira et al., 2007; Park et al., 2017; Pastuszewska et al., 1974; Promkot et al., 2003; Rudolph et al., 1983; Voris et al., 1940; Wainman et al., 1984

Last updated on 03/02/2020 21:57:25

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 93.2 2.1 85.2 97.7 601  
Crude protein % DM 47 2.3 38.4 53.1 583  
Crude fibre % DM 6.4 1.1 2.9 11.1 444  
Neutral detergent fibre % DM 13.6 4.6 9.8 21.7 6 *
Acid detergent fibre % DM 8 2 5.8 11.7 7 *
Lignin % DM 0.8 0.6 0.1 1.8 7  
Ether extract % DM 9.5 2.5 5.8 21.3 292  
Ash % DM 6.6 0.5 5.6 8.8 201  
Insoluble ash % DM 0.7       1  
Starch (polarimetry) % DM 5 2.7 1 8.9 13  
Starch (enzymatic) % DM 0.8          
Total sugars % DM 9.3   8.8 9.7 3  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 21.1 0.4 20.2 21.5 6 *
               
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Alanine g/16g N 4.4 0.2 3.8 4.4 21 *
Arginine g/16g N 7.3 0.4 6.4 8.3 22 *
Aspartic acid g/16g N 11.2 0.7 10.4 12.8 11 *
Cystine g/16g N 1.5 0.2 1.1 1.8 22 *
Glutamic acid g/16g N 17.8 1 15.2 19.4 21 *
Glycine g/16g N 4.2 0.1 4 4.4 20 *
Histidine g/16g N 2.7 0.1 2.4 3 21 *
Isoleucine g/16g N 4.6 0.3 4.1 5.1 23 *
Leucine g/16g N 7.6 0.2 7.2 8.1 24 *
Lysine g/16g N 6.2 0.4 4.9 6.9 77 *
Methionine g/16g N 1.4 0.2 1 1.7 34 *
Methionine+cystine g/16g N 3 0.2 2.2 3.3 16 *
Phenylalanine g/16g N 5.1 0.2 4.8 5.4 22 *
Phenylalanine+tyrosine g/16g N 8.6 0.2 8.4 9.1 12 *
Proline g/16g N 5 0.4 4.4 6.6 21 *
Serine g/16g N 4.9 0.6 3.8 5.6 18 *
Threonine g/16g N 3.9 0.2 3.5 4.4 23 *
Tryptophan g/16g N 1.3 0.2 0.8 1.5 13 *
Tyrosine g/16g N 3.5 0.2 3.5 4.2 16 *
Valine g/16g N 4.8 0.3 4.2 5.3 12 *
               
Fatty acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Myristic acid C14:0 % fatty acids 0.2 0.3 0 1.1 14  
Palmitic acid C16:0 % fatty acids 11.2 2.2 9.6 20.8 22  
Palmitoleic acid C16:1 % fatty acids 0.1 0.08 0 0.2 7  
Stearic acid C18:0 % fatty acids 3.8 0.4 3.2 4.8 22  
Oleic acid C18:1 % fatty acids 23.1 1.6 19.8 27.3 23  
Linoleic acid C18:2 % fatty acids 54 2.9 42.9 58.2 22  
Linolenic acid C18:3 % fatty acids 7.2 0.9 4.8 8.7 22  
               
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 3.7 1.1 1.3 5.2 18 *
Phosphorus g/kg DM 6.9 0.7 6 8.2 24 *
Potassium g/kg DM 22.4 2.6 15.2 24.6 23 *
Sodium g/kg DM 0.11 0.08 0 0.22 5  
Chlorine g/kg DM 0.3          
Magnesium g/kg DM 2.9 0.4 2.6 3.5 5 *
Sulfur g/kg DM 3.2   2.6 3.8 2  
Manganese mg/kg DM 37   32 42 2  
Zinc mg/kg DM 52   34 69 2  
Copper mg/kg DM 18   13 23 2  
Iron mg/kg DM 280   129 465 3  
Selenium mg/kg DM 0.2       1  
               
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 85.4         *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 18.1         *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 16.7         *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 11         *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 87.3       1 *
               
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 12.8   12.6 13.8 2 *
AMEn broiler MJ/kg DM 12.2   10.7 13 3 *
               
Ruminants nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, ruminants % 88.2         *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 89.2         *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 14.3         *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 79.5       1 *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 63   47 83 2 *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 71       1 *
a (N) % 13       1  
b (N) % 85       1  
c (N) h-1 0.085       1  
Dry matter degradability (effective, k=6%) % 67       1 *
Dry matter degradability (effective, k=4%) % 73         *
a (DM) % 26 10 5 47 12  
b (DM) % 71 11 52 93 12  
c (DM) h-1 0.08       1  
               
Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 16.9         *
MEn rabbit MJ/kg DM 14.9         *
Energy digestibility, rabbit % 80         *
Nitrogen digestibility, rabbit % 85.1         *

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

References

Adewolu et al., 2010; AFZ, 2017; Albar, 2006; Alegbeleye et al., 2012; Allan et al., 2000; Balogun et al., 1990; Beran et al., 2005; Broderick et al., 1990; Broderick et al., 2002; CIRAD, 1991; CIRAD, 2008; Gupta et al., 2011; Holm, 1971; Jacob et al., 2008; Lim Han Kuo, 1967; Mjoun et al., 2010; Mlay et al., 2006; Mutayoba et al., 2011; Neumark, 1970; Nguyen Nhut Xuan Dung et al., 2002; Oluyemi et al., 1976; Pozy et al., 1996; Ravindran et al., 1994; Sécalibio, 2018; Tesfaye et al., 2013; Valaja et al., 1994; Yaakugh et al., 1994; Yamazaki et al., 1988

Last updated on 03/02/2020 21:58:17

References
References 
Datasheet citation 

Heuzé V., Tran G., Kaushik S., 2020. Soybean meal. Feedipedia, a programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. https://www.feedipedia.org/node/674 Last updated on March 4, 2020, 18:25

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