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]

Species

Glycine max (L.) Merr. [Fabaceae]

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

Related feed(s)

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:

Thermal and mechanical processes: heating, extruding, extruding-expelling, various combinations of heat and pressure, etc.
Chemical treatments: alcohol, formaldehyde, NaOH, NaCl, xylose, tannins, heated Ca salts, bentonite, acids, alkalis, encapsulation with blood, zein or fat (Castro et al., 2008; Colmenero et al., 2006; Chen KuenJaw et al., 2002; Wacyk et al., 2000; Atwal et al., 1995; Smith, 1986).

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:

Cottonseed meal could totally replace soybean meal in growing rabbits (Davila et al., 2007).
A 50% replacement of soybean meal by Nigella sativa cake has been proposed in diets for weanling rabbits (Amber et al., 2001).
In diets for growing rabbits, a 50% replacement by radish seed meal, rocket seed meal or cumin seed meal (El-Tohamy et al., 2007) with hydrolyzed cattle hide scrap meal (Furlan et al., 1997) have been proposed.
For pregnant and lactating does 50% linseed meal (Amber, 2002), and 25 to 50% sunflower meal could replace soybean meal (Amber et al., 2007).

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

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

Soybean meal, high protein, type 50 and similar

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

Soybean meal, type 48 and similar

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

Soybean meal, low protein, type 44-46 and similar

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

Soybean meal, high oil (expeller)

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

Abe, M. ; Iriki, T. ; Funaba, M. ; Onda, S., 1998. Limiting amino acids for a corn and soybean meal diet in weaned calves less than three months of age. J. Anim. Sci., 76 (2): 628-636
Abe, M. ; Yamazaki, K. ; Kasahara, K. ; Iriki, T. ; Kuriyama, R. ; Funaba, M., 1999. Absence of limiting amino acids in calves fed a corn and soybean meal diet past three months of age. J. Anim. Sci., 77 (3): 769-779
Abu-Ghazaleh, A. A.; Schingoethe, D. J.; Hippen, A. R., 2001. Conjugated linoleic acid and other beneficial fatty acids in milk fat from cows fed soybean meal, fish meal, or both. J. Dairy Sci., 84 (8): 1845-1850
Adedokun, S. A.; Adeola, O.; Parsons, C. M.; Lilburn, M. S.; Applegate, T. J., 2008. Standardized ileal amino acid digestibility of plant feedstuffs in broiler chickens and turkey poults using a nitrogen-free or casein diet. Poult. Sci., 87 (12): 2535-2548
Ahmed, S.; Khan, M. J.; Shahjalal, M.; Islam, K. M. S., 2002. Effects of feeding urea and soybean meal-treated rice straw on digestibility of feed nutrients and growth performance of bull calves. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 15 (4): 522-527
Aimone, C. E.; Sanson, D. W.; Riley, M. L.; Rule, D. C., 1996. Performance and carcass components of lambs in a negative energy balance fed soybean meal or fish meal. Sheep & Goat Res. J., 12 (3): 94-98
Akiyama, D. M., 1991. Soybean meal utilization by marine shrimp. In: Akiyama, D.M., Tan, R.K.H. (Eds.), Proc. Aquaculture Feed Processing and Nutrition Workshop. American Soybean Association, Singapore, pp 207-225
Amaya, E. A. ; Davis, D. A. ; Rouse, D. B., 2008. Replacement of fish meal in practical diets for the Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) reared under pond conditions. Aquaculture, 262: 393-401
Amber, K. ; Abou-Zeid, A. E. ; Osman, M., 2001. Influence of replacing Nigella sativa cake for soybean meal on growth performance and caecal microbial activity of weanling New Zealand White rabbits. Egyptian J. Rabbit Sci., 11 (2): 191-206
Amber, K. ; Ouf, N. M. E. A., 2007. Effect of replacing soybean meal with sunflower meal on reproductive performance of New Zealand white rabbit does. Egyptian Poult. Sci. J., 27 (3): 749-768
Amber, K., 2002. Effect of substitution of linseed meal for soybean meal on caecotrophy, digestibility and reproductive performance in pregnant and lactating V-line rabbit does. Egyptian J. Rabbit Sci., 12 (1): 95-113
Anderson-Hafermann, J. C.; Zhang, Y.; Parsons, C. M., 1992. Effect of heating on nutritional quality of conventional and kunitz trypsin inhibitor-free soybeans. Poult. Sci., 71 (10): 1700-1709
Araba, M.; Dale, N. M., 1990. Evaluation of KOH solubility as an indicator of overprocessing soybean meal. Poult. Sci., 69 (1): 76-83
Ari, M. M.; Ayanwale, B. A.; Adama, T. Z.; Olatunji, E. A., 2012. Evaluation of the chemical composition and antinutritional factors (ANFs) levels of different thermally processed soybeans. Asian J. Agric Res., 6: 91-98
ASAIM, 2006. Swine Nutrition and Management. Technical Report Series, American Soybean Association International Marketing South East Asia, Singapore
Atwal, A. S. ; Mahadevan, S. ; Wolynetz, M. S. ; Yu, Y. L., 1995. Increased milk production of cows in early lactation fed chemically treated soybean meal. J. Dairy Sci., 78 (3): 595-603
Bach Knudsen, K. E., 1997. Carbohydrate and lignin contents of plant materials used in animal feeding. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 67 (4): 319-338
Baeverfjord, G. ; Krogdahl, A., 1996. Development and regression of soybean meal induced enteritis in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., distal intestine: a comparison with the intestines of fasted fish. J. Fish Dis., 19: 375-387
Bakke-McKellep, A. M. ; Froystad, M. K. ; Lilleeng, E. ; Dapra, F. ; Refstie, S. ; Krogdahl, Landsverk, T., 2007. Response to soy: T-cell-like reactivity in the intestine of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. J. J. Fish Dis., 30: 13-25
Baldwin, A. R., 1986. World Conference on emerging technologies in the fats and oils industry. American Oil Chemists' society
Bandegan, A. ; Kiarie, E. ; Payne, R. L. ; Crow, G. H. ; Guenter, W. ; Nyachoti, C. M., 2010. Standardized ileal amino acid digestibility in dry-extruded expelled soybean meal, extruded canola seed-pea, feather meal, and poultry by-product meal for broiler chickens. Poult. Sci., 89 (12): 2626–2633
Blair, R., 2007. Nutrition and feeding of organic pigs. Cabi Series, CABI, Wallingford, UK
Blair, R., 2008. Nutrition and feeding of organic poultry. Cabi Series, CABI, Wallingford, UK
Bohnert, D. W. ; Larson, B. T. ; Bauer, M. L. ; Branco, A. F. ; McLeod, K. R. ; Harmon, D. L. ; Mitchell, G. E. Jr., 1998. Nutritional evaluation of poultry by-product meal as a protein source for ruminants: effects on performance and nutrient flow and disappearance in steers. J. Anim. Sci., 76 (9): 2474-2484
Booth, A., 2015. FEFAC’s approach towards responsible soy. Chair FEFAC Sust. Committee, 25 March 2015
Brown, P. B. ; Kaushik, S. J. ; Peres, H., 2008. Protein feedstuffs originating from soybeans. In: Alternative protein sources in aquaculture diets, (C. Lim, C. Webster & C-S. Lee, Eds), The Haworth Press, Inc, NY, USA, pp. 205-223
Brzoska, F., 2008. Milk production and composition as influenced by soybean meal, rapeseed meal or rapeseed cake in concentrates for dairy cows. Annals of Animal Science, 8 (2): 133-143
Cabral, L. da S. ; Valadares Filho, S. de C. ; Detmann, E. ; Zervoudakis, J. T. ; Veloso, R. G. ; Nunes, P. M. M., 2004. Digestion rate of protein and carbohydrate fractions for corn silage, tifton-85 bermudagrass hay, elephantgrass silage and soybean meal. Rev. Bras. Zootec., 33 (6): 1573-1580
Castro, S. I. B. ; Phillip, L. E. ; Lapierre, H. ; Jardon, P. W. ; Berthiaume, R., 2008. The relative merit of ruminal undegradable protein from soybean meal or soluble fiber from beet pulp to improve nitrogen utilization in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 91 (10): 3947-3957
Cervantes-Pahm, S. K.; Stein, H. H., 2010. Ileal digestibility of amino acids in conventional, fermented, and enzyme-treated soybean meal and in soy protein isolate, fish meal, and casein fed to weanling pigs. J. Anim. Sci., 88 (8): 2674-2683
Chandrasekharaiah, M. ; Sampath, K. T. ; Thulasi, A. ; Anandan, S., 2001. In situ protein degradability of certain feedstuffs in the rumen of cattle. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 71 (3): 261-264
Chandrasekharaiah, M. ; Sampath, K. T. ; Praveen, U. S. ; Umalatha, 2002. Evaluation of chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of certain commonly used concentrate ingredients and fodder/top feeds in ruminant rations. Indian J. Dairy Biosci., 13 (2): 28-35
Chapoutot, P., 1998. Étude de la dégradation in situ des constituants pariétaux des aliments pour ruminants. Thèse Docteur en Sciences Agronomiques, Institut National Agronomique Paris-Grignon, Paris (FRA), 1998/11/17.
Chen KuenJaw; Jan DerFang; Chiou WenShyg [Chiou, W. S. P. ]; Yang, DerWei, 2002. Effects of dietary heat extruded soybean meal and protected fat supplement on the production, blood and ruminal characteristics of Holstein cows. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 15 (6): 821-827
Choct, M.; Hughes, R. J.; Wang, J.; Bedford, M. R.; Morgan, A. J.; Annison, G., 1995. Feed enzymes eliminate the anti-nutritive effect of non-starch polysaccharides and modify the fermentation in broilers. Proc. 7th Austr. Poult. Sci. Symp., p. 121-125
Cilliers, S. C.; Sales, J.; Hayes, J. P.; Chwalibog, A.; Du Preez, J. J., 1999. Comparison of metabolisable energy values of different foodstuffs determined in ostriches and poultry. Br. Poult. Sci., 40 (4): 491—494
Clark, J. H. ; Ipharraguerre, I. R., 2001. Livestock Performance: Feeding Biotech Crops. J. Dairy Sci., 84 (suppl.): E9-18
Claypool, D. W. ; Hoffman, C. H. ; Oldfield, J. E. ; Adams, H. P., 1985. Canola meal, cottonseed, and soybean meals as protein supplements for calves. J. Dairy Sci., 68 (1): 67-70
Coca-Sinova, A. ; Valencia, D. G. ; Jiménez-Moreno, E. ; Lázaro, R. ; Mateos, G. G., 2008. Apparent ileal digestibility of energy, nitrogen, and amino acids of soybean meals of different origin in broilers. Poult. Sci., 87 (12): 2613–2623
Colmenero, J. J. O. ; Broderick, G. A., 2006. Effect of amount and ruminal degradability of soybean meal protein on performance of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 89 (5): 1635-1643
Coon, C. N. ; Leske, K. L. ; Akavanichan, O. ; Cheng, T. K., 1990. Effect of oligosaccharide-free soybean meal on true metabolizable energy and fiber digestion in adult roosters. Poult. Sci., 69 (5):787-93
Costa, R. G. ; Beltrao Filho, E. M. ; Queiroga, R. de C. R. do E. ; Medeiros, A. N. de; Maia, M. de O. ; Cruz, S. E. S. B. S., 2009. Partial replacement of soybean meal by urea on production and milk physicochemical composition in Saanen goats. Rev. Bras. Saúde Prod. Anim., 10 (3): 596-603
Cromwell, G. L., 1999. Soybean Meal - The "Gold Standard". The Farmer’s Pride, KPPA News, 11 (20)
Cromwell, G. L., 2012. Soybean meal - An exceptional protein source. Soybean Meal InfoCenter, Ankeny, IA
Danesh Mesgaran, M. D. ; Jahani-Azizabadi, H. ; Heravi Moussavi, A. R., 2008. Comparison of techniques to determine the ruminal and post ruminal protein disapperance of various oilseed meals. Res. J. Biol. Sci., 3 (9): 1028-1033
Davila, N. F. P. ; Gomes, A. V. da C. ; Pessoa, M. F. ; Crespi, M. P. L. de; Coll, J. F. de C., 2007. Replacement of soybean meal by cottonseed meal as feed for growing rabbits. Acta Scientiarum - Animal Sciences, 29 (3): 277-282
DeGroot, M. A.; Miller, J. R.; Arana, M. J.; DePeters, E. J., 2007. Case study: variability in chemical composition and digestibility of twelve by-product feedstuffs utilized in the California dairy industry. The Professional Animal Scientist, 23: 148–163
DelCurto, T. ; Cochran, R. C. ; Nagaraja, T. G. ; Corah, L. R. ; Beharka, A. A. ; Vanzant, E. S., 1990. Comparison of soybean meal/sorghum grain, alfalfa hay and dehydrated alfalfa pellets as supplemental protein sources for. J. Anim. Sci., 68 (9): 2901-2915
Devendra, C. ; Göhl, B. I., 1970. The chemical composition of Caribbean feedingstuffs. Trop. Agric. (Trinidad), 47 (4): 335
Dilger, R. N. ; Adeola, O., 2006. Estimation of true phosphorus digestibility and endogenous phosphorus loss in growing pigs fed conventional and low-phytate soybean meals. J. Anim. Sci., 84: 627-634
Dourado, L. R. B.; Pascoal, L. A. F.; Sakomura, N. K.; Costa, F. G. P.; Biagiotti, P., 2011. Soybeans (Glycine max) and soybean products in poultry and swine nutrition. In: Krezhova, D. (Ed.), "Recent trends for enhancing the diversity and quality of soybean products", InTech, October 10, 2011
Dozier, W. A.; Hess, J. B., 2011. Soybean meal quality and analytical techniques: chapter 6. In: Hany El-Shemy (Ed.), Soybean and Nutrition, IntechOpen,
Drew, M. D. ; Borgeson, T. L. ; Thiessen, D. L., 2007. A review of processing of feed ingredients to enhance diet digestibility in finfish. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 138 (2): 118-136
Dunford, N. T., 2012. Food and industrial bioproducts and bioprocessing: advancements in oil and oilseed processing. Dpt Biosyst. Agric. Eng., Oklahoma State Univ., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Economides, S., 1998. The nutritive value of sunflower meal and its effects on replacing cereal straw in the diets of lactating ewes and goats. Livest. Prod. Sci., 55: 89-97
EFSA GMO Panel, 2008. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials. Food Chem. Toxicol., 46 (Suppl 1): S2-70
El-Tohamy, M. M. ; El-Kady, R. I., 2007. Partial replacement of soybean meal with some medicinal plant seed meals and their effect on the performance of rabbits. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 9 (2): 215-219
Elkin, R. G., 2002. Nutritional components of feedstuffs: a qualitative chemical appraisal of protein. In: Poultry Feedstuffs Supply, Composition and Nutritive Value. Editors: McNab, J. and Boorman, N. Poultry science symposium series ; volume 26
Ewing, 1997. The Feeds Directory Vol 1. Commodity Products. Context Publications, Leicestershire, England.
FAO, 2016. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy
Fernández, C. ; Sánchez-Seiquer, P. ; Sánchez, A., 2003. Use of a total mixed ration with three sources of protein as an alternative feeding for dairy goats on Southeast of Spain. Pakistan J. Nutr., 2 (1): 18-24
Fernández, C. ; Rubert-Alemán, J. ; Sánchez-Séiquer, P., 2004. Effect of two sources of protein on performance in Murciano-Granadina goats during lactation. Options Méditerranéennes : Série A, 59: 79-83
Freeman, S. R. ; Poore, M. H. ; Huntington, G. B. ; Middleton, T. F., 2008. Evaluation of secondary protein nutrients as a substitute for soybean meal in diets for beef steers and meat goats. J. Anim. Sci., 86 (1): 146-158
Frikha, M.; Serrano, M. P.; Valencia, D. G.; Rebollar, P. G.; Fickler, J.; Mateos, G. G., 2012. Correlation between ileal digestibility of amino acids and chemical composition of soybean meals in broilers at 21 days of age. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 178 (1/2): 103-114
Froidmont, E. ; Bartiaux-Thill, N., 2004. Suitability of lupin and pea seeds as a substitute for soybean meal in high-producing dairy cow feed. Anim. Res., 53 (6): 475-487
Furlan, A. C. ; Fraiha, M. ; Scapinello, C. ; Murakami, A. E. ; Moreira, I., 1997. Soybean meal replacement by protein hydrolyzed cattle hide scrap meal in growing rabbit diets. Revista UNIMAR 19 (3): 905-912
Getachew, G. ; Robinson, P. H. ; DePeters, E. J. ; Taylor, S. J., 2004. Relationships between chemical composition, dry matter degradation and in vitro gas production of several ruminant feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 111 (1-4): 41-56
Giannico, F. ; Colonna, M. A. ; Coluccia, A. ; Crocco, D. ; Vonghia, G. ; Cocca, C. ; Jambrenghi, A. C., 2009. Extruded linseed and linseed oil as alternative to soybean meal and soybean oil in diets for fattening lambs. Italian J. Anim. Sci., 8 (Suppl. 2): 495-497
GMO Register, 2016. EU Register of authorized GMOs. European Commission
Graham, K. K.; Kerley, M. S.; Firman, J. D., Allee, G. L., 2002. The effect of enzyme treatment of soybean meal on oligosaccharide disappearance and chick growth performance. Poult Sci., 81 (7): 1014-1019
Grala, W. ; Verstegen, M. W. ; Jansman, A. J. ; Huisman, J. ; van Leeusen, P., 1998. Ileal apparent protein and amino digestibilities and endogenous nitrogen losses in pigs fed soybean and rapeseed products. J. Anim. Sci., 76 (2): 557-568
Green, S. ; Bertrand, S. L. ; Duron, M. J. C. ; Maillard, R., 1987. Digestibilities of amino acids in soyabean, sunflower and groundnut meals, determined with intact and caecectomised cockerels. Br. Poult. Sci., 28 (4): 643-652
Green, S. ; Kiener, T., 1989. Digestibilities of nitrogen and amino acids in soya-bean, sunflower, meat and rapeseed meals measured with pigs and poultry. Anim. Prod., 48 (48): 157-179
Grisdale-Helland, B. ; Ruyter, B. ; Rosenlund, G. ; Obach, A. ; Helland, S. J. ; Sandberg, M. G. ; Standal, H.;Rosjo, C., 2002. Influence of high contents of dietary soybean oil on growth, feed utilization, tissue fatty acid composition, heart histology and standard oxygen consumption of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) raised at two temperatures. Aquaculture, 207 (3-4): 311-329
Gupta, N. K. ; Gupta, B. N., 1985. Effect of formaldehyde treatment of various protein meals on the solubility, in vitro ammonia release and degradability in the rumen. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 55 (7): 579-585
Guthrie, M. J. ; Wagner, D. G., 1988. Influence of protein or grain supplementation and increasing levels of soybean meal on intake, utilization and passage rate of prairie hay in beef steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci., 66 (6): 1529-1537
Habiba, R. A., 2002. Changes in anti-nutrients, protein solubility, digestibility, and HCl-extractability of ash and phosphorus in vegetable peas as affected by cooking methods. Food Chemistry, 77 (2): 187-192
Haddad, S. G., 2006. Bitter vetch grains as a substitute for soybean meal for growing lambs. Livest. Sci., 99 (2-3): 221-225
Hadjipanayiotou, M., 1998. Partial replacement of soybean meal with urea in diets of lactating Friesian cows offered concentrate mixtures in frequent meals. Technical Bulletin - Cyprus Agricultural Research Institute (188): 8 pp
Hadjipanayiotou, M., 2003. Replacement of soybean meal by narbon beans (Vicia narbonensis) in concentrate diets fed to growing and lactating ruminants. Technical Bulletin - Cyprus Agricultural Research Institute (214): 9 pp
Hammond, E. G. ; Johnson, L. A. ; Su Caiping ; Wang Tong ; White, P. J., 2005. Soybean oil. In: Bailey’s Industrial Oil and Fat Products, Sixth Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Hemken, R. W.; Vandersall, H.; Sass, B. A.; Hibbs, J. W., 1971. Goitrogenic Effects of a Corn Silage-Soybean Meal Supplemented Ration. J. Dairy Sci., 54 (1): 85-88
Hill, T. M. ; Christen, S. D. ; Davis-Dentici, K., 1995. Effect of supplementing late gestation and lactating ewes receiving low protein grass hay with barley or soybean meal. J. Sustainable Agriculture, 7 (2-3): 41-51
Hoffmann, E. M.; Muetzel, S.; Becker, K., 2003. The fermentation of soybean meal by rumen microbes in vitro reveals different kinetic features for the inactivation and the degradation of trypsin inhibitor protein. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 106 (1/4): 189-197
INRA, 1988. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Ed. R. Jarrige, INRA, Paris, 471 p.
Irshaid, R. H. ; Harb, M. Y. ; Titi, H. H., 2003. Replacing soybean meal with sunflower seed meal in the ration of Awassi ewes and lambs. Small Rumin. Res., 50 (1): 109-116
Izquierdo, M. ; Obach, A. ; Arantzamendi, L. ; Montero, D. ; Robaina, L. ; Rosenlund, G., 2003. Dietary lipid sources for seabream and seabass: growth performance, tissue composition and flesh quality. Aquacult. Nutr., 9 (6): 397-407
Jahanian, R. Rasouli, E., 2016. Effect of extrusion processing of soybean meal on ileal amino acid digestibility and growth performance of broiler chicks. Poult. Sci., 95 (12): 2871–2878
Johnson, L.; Smith, K., 2018. Fact sheet: Soybean processing. The Soybean Meal Information Center
Johri, T. S. ; Agrawal, R. ; Sadagopan, V. R., 1988. Available lysine and methionine contents of some proteinous feedstuffs. Indian J. Anim. Nutr., 5 (3): 228-229
Kamalak, A. ; Canbolat, O. ; Gurbuz, Y. ; Ozay, O., 2005. In situ ruminal dry matter and crude protein degradability of plant- and animal-derived protein sources in Southern Turkey. Small Rumin. Res., 58 (2): 135-141
Kandylis, K. ; Fegeros, K., 1986. Estimation of effective protein degradability in the rumen of sheep using the nylon bag technique. World Rev. Anim. Prod., 22: 77-80
Karr-Lilienthal, L. K.; Bauer, L. L.; Utterback, P. L.; Zinn, K. E.; Frazier, R. L.; Parsons, C. M.; Fahey, G., C., 2006. Chemical composition and nutritional quality of soybean meals prepared by extrudes/expeller processing for use in poultry diets. J. Agric. Food Chem., 54 (21): 8108-8114
Kaushik, S. J. ; Cravedi, J. P. ; Lalles J. P. ; Sumpter J.;Fauconneau, B. ; Laroche, M., 1995. Partial or total replacement of fish meal by soybean protein on growth, protein utilization, potential estrogenic or antigenic effects, cholesterolemia and flesh quality in rainbow trout. Aquaculture, 133 (3-4): 257-274
Kaushik, S. J., 2008. Soybean Products in Salmonid diets. In: Alternative protein sources in aquaculture diets, (C. Lim, C. Webster & C-S. Lee, Eds), The Haworth Press, Inc, NY, USA, pp. 261-279
Kong, C. ; Adeola, O., 2013. Additivity of amino acid digestibility in corn and soybean meal for broiler chickens and White Pekin ducks. Poult. Sci., 92 (9): 2381–2388
Konishi, C. ; Matsui, T. ; Park, W. ; Yano, H. ; Yano, F., 1999. Heat treatment of soybean meal and rapeseed meal suppresses rumen degradation of phytate phosphorus in sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 80 (2): 115–122
Krysl, L. J. ; Branine, M. E. ; Cheema, A. U. ; Funk, M. A. ; Galyean, M. L., 1989. Influence of soybean meal and sorghum grain supplementation on intake, digesta kinetics, ruminal fermentation, site and extent of digestion and microbial protein synthesis in beef steers grazing blue grama rangeland. J. Anim. Sci., 67 (11): 3040-3051
Lebas, F., 2004. Reflections on rabbit nutrition with a special emphasis on feed ingredients utilization. Proceedings of the 8th World Rabbit Congress, September 7-10, 2004, Puebla, Mexico 2004
Leeson, S. ; Summers, J.D., 2005. Commercial poultry nutrition. Third Edition, Nottingham University Press
Lewis, A. J. ; Southern, L. L., 2001. Swine nutrition. 2nd edition - CRC Press
Lim, C.; Ako, H.; Brown, C. L.; Hahn, K.;, 1997. Growth response and fatty acid composition of juvenile Penaeus vannamei fed different sources of dietary lipid. Aquaculture, 151 (1-4): 143-153
Lowell, T., 1998. Nutrition and feeding of fish. Aquaculture Series, Springer, 267 pp
MacDonald, K. A. ; Penno, J. W. ; Kolver, E. S. ; Carter, W. A. ; Lancaster, J. A., 1998. Balancing pasture and maize silage diets for dairy cows using urea, soybean meal or fishmeal. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 58: 102-105
Mathius, I. W. ; Yulistiani, D. ; Puastuti, W. ; Martawidjaja, M., 2001. The effect of feeding mixtures of banana trunk and soybean meal on lamb performance. Jurnal Ilmu Ternak dan Veteriner, 6 (3): 141-147
MacDonald, K. A. ; Penno, J. W. ; Kolver, E. S. ; Carter, W. A. ; Lancaster, J. A., 1998. Balancing pasture and maize silage diets for dairy cows using urea, soybean meal or fishmeal. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 58: 102-105
McDonald, P.; Edwards, R. A.; Greenhalgh, J. F. D., 2002. Animal Nutrition. 6th Edition. Longman, London and New York. 543 p.
McNab, J. M., 2002. Poultry Feedstuffs: Supply, Composition and Nutritive Value. CABI Publishing
Melo, A. A. S. de; Ferreira, M. de A. ; Veras, A. S. C. ; Iira, M. de A. ; Lima, L. E. de; Vilela, M. da S. ; Melo, E. O. S. de; Araujo, P. R. B., 2003. Partial replacement of soybean meal for urea and forage cactus in lactating cows diets. I. Performance. Rev. Bras. Zootec., 32 (3): 727-736
Morse, W. J. ; Cartter, J. L., 1952. Soybeans for feed, food and industrial products. USDA, Farmer's Bulletin N°2038
Navarro, D. M. D. L.; Liu, Y.; Bruun, T. S.; Stein, H. H., 2017. Amino acid digestibility by weanling pigs of processed ingredients originating from soybeans, 00-rapeseeds, or a fermented mixture of plant ingredients. J. Anim. Sci., 95 (6): 2658-2669
Neumark, H., 1970. Personal communication. Volcani Institute of Agricutural Reseach, Israel
Newkirk, R., 2010. Soybean: Feed Industry Guide. 1st edition, Canadian International Grains Institute
Nguyen Nhut Xuan Dung; Luu Huu Manh; Udén, P., 2002. Tropical fibre sources for pigs - digestibility, digesta retention and estimation of fibre digestibility in vitro. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 102 (1-4): 109–124
O'Quinn, P. R. ; Knabe, D. A. ; Gregg, E. J. ; Lusas, E. W., 1997. Nutritional value for swine of soybean meal produced by isopropyl alcohol extraction. J. Anim. Sci., 75 (3):714-719
Oil World, 2015. Oil World Annual 2015. ISTA Mielke GmbH, Hamburg
Olude, O. O. ; Alegbeleye, W. O. A. ; Obasa, S. O., 2008. The use of soaked copra meal as a partial substitute for soybean meal in the diet of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fingerlings. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 20 (10): 169
Owen, M. K. D., 2009. Herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops: resistance management. In: Environmental impact of genetically modified crops, Eds N. Ferry and A.M.R. Gatehouse, CABI, 432 p
Oyeyemi, M. O. ; Adetunji, V. O. ; Olubukola, O., 2006. Effects of different planes of meat offals and soybean meal on the morphological characteristics of West African dwarf buck's spermiogram. Veterinarski Arhiv, 76 (2): 159-165
Paengkoum, P. ; Bunnakit, K., 2009. Replacement of soybean meal with cassava pulp mixed with urea Gelatinizes (Caspurea) in concentrate diets of beef cattle. Agricultural Journal, 4 (5): 242-249
Park, Y. H.; Kim, H. K.; Kim, H. S.; Lee, H. S.; Shin, I. S.; Whang, K. Y., 2002. Effects of three different soybean meal sources on layer and broiler performance. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 15 (2): 254-265
Parsons, C. M. ; Potter, L. M. ; Brown, R. D., 1981. True metabolizable energy and amino acid digestibility of dehulled soybean meal. Poult. Sci., 60 (12): 2687-2696
Parsons, C. M. ; Hashimoto, K. ; Wedekind, K. J. ; Baker, D. H., 1991. Soybean protein solubility in potassium hydroxide: an in vitro test of in vivo protein quality. J. Anim. Sci., 69 (7): 2918-2924
Parsons, C. M. ; Zhang, Y. ; Araba, M., 2000. Nutritional evaluation of soybean meals varying in oligosaccharide content. Poult. Sci., 79:1127–1131
Patience, J. F. ; Thacker, P. A. ; de Lange, C. F. M., 1995. Swine Nutrition Guide. 2nd Edition. Prairie Swine Centre Inc. Saskatoon, Canada
Perilla, N. S. ; Cruz, M. P. ; de Belalcázar, F. ; Diaz, G. J., 1997. Effect of temperature of wet extrusion on the nutritional value of full-fat soyabeans for broiler chickens. Br. Poult. Sci., 38 (4): 412-416
Pettigrew, J. E. ; Soltwedel, K. T.,; Miguel, J. C. ; Palacios, M. F., 2008. Fact sheet - Soybean Use - Swine. Soybean Meal Information Center
Phuong Ha Truong ; Anderson, A. J. ; Mather, P. B. ; Paterson, B. D. ; Richardson, N. A., 2009. Apparent digestibility of selected feed ingredients in diets formulated for the sub-adult mud crab, Scylla paramamosain, in Vietnam. Aquacult. Res., 40 (3): 322-328
Pires, A. V. ; Oliveira Junior, R. C. de; Fernandes, J. J. de R. ; Susin, I. ; Santos, F. A. P. ; Araujo, R. C. de; Goulart, R. C. D., 2004. Total replacement of soybean meal by urea or starea in high grain diets for beef cattle. Pesq. Agropec. Bras., 39 (9): 937-942
Polan, C. E. ; Cozzi, G. ; Berzaghi, P. ; Andrighetto, I., 1997. A blend of animal and cereal protein or fish meal as partial replacement for soybean meal in the diets of lactating Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci., 80 (1): 160-166
Powell, S.; Naranjo, V. D.; Lauzon, D.; Bidner, T. D.; Southern, L. L.; Parsons, C. M. , 2011. Evaluation of an expeller-extruded soybean meal for broilers. J. Appl. Pout. Res., 20 (3): 353–360
Puigserver, A. ; Andrieu, J. P. ; Bories, G. ; Paragon, B. M. ; Warnet, J. M. ; Valentin, S., 2004. Risk assessment of the utilisation of formaldehyde in animal feeding. AFSSA, Janvier 2004, 25 p.
Quinsac, A.; Labalette, F.; Carré, P.; Parachini, E.; Jouffret, P., 2015. Local soybean supply chain . OCL, 22 (5): D506, 1-10
Rackis, J. J.; Wolf, W. J.; Baker, E. C. , 1986. Protease inhibitors in plant foods: content and inactivation. In: Nutritional and toxicological significance of enzyme inhibitors in foods, Mendel Friedman Plenum Publishing Corporation
Ravichandiran, S. ; Sharma, K. ; Narayan Dutta; Pattanaik, A. K. ; Chauhan, J. S. ; Abha Agnihotri; Arvind Kumar, 2008. Performance of crossbred calves on supplements containing soybean meal or rapeseed-mustard cake with varying glucosinolate levels. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 78 (1): 85-90
Reddy, V. R. ; Eshwariah, 1989. Effect of graded replacement of fish meal with vegetable proteins in broiler starter rations. Indian J. Anim. Nutr., 6 (2): 166-168
Rego, O. A. ; Regalo, S. M. M. ; Rosa, H. J. D. ; Alves, S. P. ; Borba, A. E. S. ; Bessa, R. J. B. ; Cabrita, A. R. J. ; Fonseca, A. J. M., 2008. Effects of grass silage and soybean meal supplementation on milk production and milk fatty acid profiles of grazing dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 91 (7): 2736-2743
Regost, C. ; Arzel, J. ; Robin, J. ; Rosenlund, G. ; Kaushik, S. J., 2003. Total replacement of fish oil by soybean or linseed oil with a return to fish oil in turbot (Psetta maxima) - 1. Growth performance, flesh fatty acid profile, and lipid metabolism. Aquaculture, 217 (1-4): 465-482
Rhee, K. C., 2008. Effects of processing on nutrient content of soybean meal. Food Protein Research and Development Center, Texas A&M University
Royer, E.; Carré, P.; Halas, V.; Sakkas, P.; Bikker, P.; Quinsac, A.; Kyriazakis, I.; Bach Knudsen, K. E., 2020. Processing of partly defatted meals from European soybeans and nutritional value for broilers and piglets. Feed-a-Gene final meeting. Feed-a-Gene project funded from the H2020 Programme of the European Union under grant agreement no 633531.
Sanchez Estrada, A. ; Ayala Burgos, A. J., 2002. Intake, digestibility, N-balance and milk yield in creole goats fed with maize stover and supplemented with soybean meal or poultry meal. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst., 1 (1): 34-35
Sauvant, D.; Perez, J. M.; Tran, G., 2004. Tables INRA-AFZ de composition et de valeur nutritive des matières premières destinées aux animaux d'élevage: 2ème édition. ISBN 2738011586, 306 p. INRA Editions Versailles
Sauveur, B., 1989. Phytic phosphorus and phytases in poultry nutrition. Inra Prod. Anim., 2 (5): 343-351
Seker, E., 2002. The determination of the energy values of some ruminant feeds by using digestibility trial and gas test. Revue Med. Vet., 153 (5): 323-328
Seoane, J. R. ; Christen, A. M. ; Dion, S., 1990. Intake and digestibility in steers fed grass hay supplemented with corn or barley and fish meal or soybean meal. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 70 (3): 921-926
Silva, J. G. da ; Oliva-Teles, A., 1998. Apparent digestibility coefficients of feedstuffs in seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) juveniles. Aquat. Living Resour., 11 (3): 187-191
Silva, L. das D. F. da; Ezequiel, J. M. B. ; Azevedo, P. S. de; Barbosa, J. C. ; Cattelan, J. W. ; Resende, F. D. de; Seixas, J. R. C. ; Carmo, F. R. G. do, 1999. In situ degradability of dry matter, organic matter and crude protein of some feeds in crossbred steers. Semina (Londrina), 20 (1): 25-30
Silva, H. G. de O. ; Pires, A. J. V. ; Silva, F. F. da ; Veloso, C. M. ; Carvalho, G. G. P. de ; Cezario, A. S. ; Santos, C. C., 2005. Effects of feeding cocoa meal (Theobroma cacao L.) and palm kernel cake (Elaeis guineensis, Jacq) on milk intake and yield for lactating goats. Rev. Bras. Zootec., 34 (5): 1786-1794
Smith, K., 1986. Advances in feeding soybean products. In: World Conference on emerging technologies in the fats and oils industry. Ed: Baldwin A.R., American Oil Chemists' society
Smits, C. H. M.; Annison, G., 1996. Non-starch plant polysaccharides in broiler nutrition - towards a physiologically valid approach to their determination. World's Poult. Sci. J., 52: 203-221
Soren, N. M.; Sastry, V. R. B.; Saha, S. K.; Wankhade, U. D.; Lade, M. H.; Kumar, A., 2009. Performance of growing lambs fed processed karanj (Pongamia glabra) oil seed cake as partial protein supplement to soybean meal. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr., 93 (2): 237-244
Sotak, Stein, H. H., 2014. Nutritional value of soybean products. In: Midwest Swine Nutr. Conf. Proc., Indianapolis, Indiana—September 4, 2014, p. 19
Souza, J. R. S. T. de ; Camarao, A. P. ; Rego, L. C., 2000. Ruminal degradability of dry matter and crude protein of agroindustry, fish and slaughterhouse byproducts in goats. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci., 37 (2):
Stefanello, C. ; Vieira, S. L. ; Rios, H. V. ; Simões, C. T. ; Sorbara, J. O. B., 2016. Energy and nutrient utilisation of broilers fed soybean meal from two different Brazilian production areas with an exogenous protease. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 221 (B): 267-273
Steinfeld, H. ; Gerber, P. ; Wassenaar, T. ; Castel, V. ; Rosales, M. ; de Haan, C., 2006. Livestock's long shadow,. FAO, Rome 2006
Swick, R. A., 1997. Update on the use of soybean meal for growing pigs. American Soybean Association - Technical Bulletin SW12
Tibbetts, S. M. ; Milley, J. E. ; Lall, S. P., 2006. Apparent protein and energy digestibility of common and alternative feed ingredients by Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua (Linnaeus, 1758). Aquaculture, 261 (4): 1314-1327
Tidwell, J. H. ; Webster, C. D. ; Yancey, D. H. ; D'Abramo, L. R., 1993. Partial and total replacement of fish meal with soybean meal and distillers' by-products in diets for pond culture of the freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii). Aquaculture, 118: 119-130
Todorov, N. ; Simeonov, M. ; Yildiz, E., 2016. Rumen degradability of dry matter and protein in four protein sources and their relationships with milk protein yield in dairy cows. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci., 22 (2): 278–285
Tousi-Mojarrad, M.; Seidavi, A.; Dadashbeiki, M.; Roca-Fernandez, A. I., 2014. Short communication. Effect of soybean meal heat procedures on growth performance of broiler chickens. Spanish J. Agric. Res., 12 (1): 180-185
Tripathi, M. K. ; Agrawal, I. S. ; Sharma, S. D. ; Mishra, D. P., 2001. Effect of substitution of soybean meal with treated or untreated high glucosinolate mustard (Brassica juncea) meal on intake, digestibility, growth performance and body composition of calves. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 94 (3-4): 137-146
Urbaniak, M., 1995. Effects of blood meal, fish meal, soybean meal or casein on rumen protein metabolism in lambs. Small Rumin. Res., 18 (3): 207-212
Valencia, D. G.; Serrano, M. P.; Lázaro, R.; Jiménez-Moreno, E.; Mateos, G. G., 2009. Influence of micronization (fine grinding) of soya bean meal and full-fat soya bean on the ileal digestibility of amino acids for broilers. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 150 (3/4): 238-248
van Eys, J. E.; Offner, A.; Back, A., 2004. Manual of quality analyses for soybean products in the feed industry. American soybean association
van Kempen T. A. T. G. ; van Heugten, E. ; Moeser, A. J. ; Muley, N. S. ; Sewalt, V. J., 2006. Selecting soybean meal characteristics preferred for swine nutrition.. J. Anim. Sci., 84 (6):1387-1395
Veira, D. M. ; Proulx, J. G. ; Seoane, J. R., 1990. Performance of beef steers fed grass silage with or without supplements of soybean meal, fish meal and barley. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 70 (1): 313-317
Wacyk, J. ; Gonzalez, H. ; Manterola, H. ; Cerda, D. ; Mira, J., 2000. Effects of formaldehyde treated soybean meal inclusion, on crude protein degradability, ruminal parameters and milk production in dairy cows. Avances en Produccion Animal, 25 (1-2): 141-150
Waldroup, P. W. ; Smith, K., 2008. Fact Sheet - Soybean Use - Poultry. Soybean Meal Information Center
Walker, C. A., 1975. Personal communication. Central Research Station, Mazabuka, N. Rhodesia
Wanapat, M. ; Promkot, C. ; Wanapat, S. ; Rowlinson, P., 2007. Supplementation of cassava hay as a protein replacement for soybean meal in concentrate supplement for dairy cows. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 77 (12): 1312-1315
Wilcox, J. R. ; Premachandra, G. S. ; Young, K. A. ; Raboy, V., 2000. Isolation of high seed inorganic P, low-phytate soybean mutants. Crop Science, 40: 1601-1605
Willis, S., 2003. The use of soybean meal and full-fat soybean meal by the animal feed industry. 12th Australian Soybean Conference
Wiryawan, K. G. ; Dingle, J. G. ; Kumar, A. ; Gaughan, J. B. ; Young, B. A., 1995. True metabolisable energy content of grain legumes : effects of enzyme supplementation. In: Rowe, J.B., Nolan, J.V. (Eds.), Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition in Australia. University of New England, Armidale. p. 196
Woods, V. B.; O'Mara, F. P.; Moloney, A. P, 2003. The nutritive value of concentrate feedstuffs for ruminant animals. Part I: In situ ruminal degradability of dry matter and organic matter. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 110 (1/4): 111-130
Yamamoto, T. ; Ikeda, K. ; Unuma, T., 1997. Apparent availabilities of amino acids and minerals from several protein sources for fingerling rainbow trout. Fisheries Sci., 63 (6): 995-1001
Yamamoto, T. ; Akimoto, A. ; Kishi, S. ; Unuma, T. ; Akiyama, T., 1998. Apparent and true availabilities of amino acids from several protein sources for fingerling rainbow trout, common carp, and red sea bream. Fisheries Sci., 64 (3): 448-458
Zanella, I.; Sakomura, N. K.; Silverside, F. G., 1999. Effect of enzyme supplementation of broiler diets based on corn and soybeans. Poult. Sci., 78 (4): 561-568
Zuo, Y. ; Fahey, G. C. ; Merchen, N. R. ; Bajjalieh, N. L., 1996. Digestion responses to low oligosaccharide soybean meal by ileally-cannulated dogs. J. Anim. Sci., 74 (10): 2441-2449

Datasheet citation

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

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

Image credits

Search form

Sponsored by

Automatic translation

Feed categories

Scientific names

Tools

Resources

Soybean meal

Datasheet

Pre-extraction treatments

Cooking

Crushing and flaking

Dehulling

Extraction processes

Solvent extraction

Mechanical extraction

Screw pressing

Extruding/expelling

Removal of antinutritional factors and improvement of protein solubility

Pre-extraction treatments of expeller soybean meal

Physical/thermal treatments

Tail-end treatments

Enzyme addition and fermentation

Fine grinding

Variability

Antinutritional Factors

Goitrogens and oestrogens

Non-Starch Polysaccharides (NSP)

Phytates and mineral availability

GM soybean meal

Cattle

Sheep

Goats

Dehulling

Heat treatments

Shrimps and prawns

Crabs

Soybean meal, high protein, type 50 and similar

References

Soybean meal, type 48 and similar

References

Soybean meal, low protein, type 44-46 and similar

References

Soybean meal, high oil (expeller)

References

178 references found