Feedipedia
Animal feed resources information system
Feedipedia
Feedipedia

Sponsored by

Adisseo

Automatic translation

Did you find the information you were looking for? Is it valuable to you? Feedipedia is encountering funding shortage. We need your help to keep providing reference-based feeding recommendations for your animals.
Would you consider donating? If yes, please click on the button Donate.
Any amount is the welcome. Even one cent is helpful to us!

Sunflower hulls and sunflower screenings

Datasheet

Description
Click on the "Nutritional aspects" tab for recommendations for ruminants, pigs, poultry, rabbits, horses, fish and crustaceans
Sunflower hulls
Common names 
  • Sunflower hulls, sunflower shells
  • Sunflower screenings
Species 

Helianthus annuus L. [Asteraceae]

Feed categories 
Related feed(s) 
Description 

Sunflower hulls are the by-product of the dehulling of sunflower seeds before they are used for oil extraction or as bakery ingredients (AAFC, 2007). Sunflower seeds contain about 20-30% hulls that are often removed before oil extraction due to their deleterious effects on oil presses and because they reduce the quality of both oil and meal (Kartika, 2005). Decreasing the hull content by 1% improves pressing capacity by 2.5%. A well-managed dehulling process yields seeds with 8-12% hulls remaining on the kernels (Campbell, 1983). 100 kg of seeds having 25% hulls yielded 16.5 kg of hulls in an experiment where 66% of the hulls were removed (Carré, 2009).

Dehulling is done after cleaning the seeds and drying them down to 5% moisture, which facilitates kernel-hull separation (Kartika, 2005). The usual process consists in cracking the seeds by the mechanical action of centrifugal or pneumatic shellers. The resulting blend is winnowed to separate the hulls from the kernels. In new sunflower varieties, breeders have enhanced oil content at the expense of hulls, resulting in seeds with thinner hulls that are difficult to remove: these varieties remain undecorticated and do not yield sunflower hulls (Carré, 2009; Grompone, 2005; Campbell, 1983).

Sunflower hulls are light in weight and bulky, and are, therefore, costly and impractical to transport. They are burned as fuel to power oil mills but only half of the hulls available can be used on-site for energy production. The remaining half has to be transported off-site, to provide energy or for other purposes, such as composting, bedding material, or as a low-quality roughage for livestock (Dorrell et al., 1997; Carré, 2009).

Sunflower screenings are a mixture of variable amounts of residues including hulls, groats, lightweight or broken seeds, heads, sclerotia bodies, weed seeds, chaff, joints, straw, elevator dust and floor sweepings (Lardy et al., 2009).

Distribution 

Sunflower hulls are costly to transport because of their low density and are then only available close to sunflower oil mills (Dorrell et al., 1997). Some mills grind the hulls into a flour, resulting in a denser product (250 kg/m3 vs. 70-100 kg/m3) that is easier and less expensive to transport (Borredon et al., 2011).

Nutritional aspects
Nutritional attributes 

Sunflower hulls are a highly fibrous ingredient, rich in insoluble non-starch polysaccharides. They often contain more than 50% crude fibre or ADF, 70-85% NDF and 15-25% lignin. The protein and oil content are low but not negligible (about 7% and 5% respectively) due to variations in the amount of kernel fragments. Sunflower hulls have a low nutritive value for all animal species and are mostly used for animals that have specific fibre requirements, such as ruminants and rabbits (Cancalon, 1971).

The nutritive value of screenings will depend on the included amount of fibrous materials such as stalks and hulls, as in large amounts these will reduce the nutritive value. According to the proportion of whole seeds and groats, protein and fibre content may be equivalent to good quality hays or higher (Lardy et al., 2009). Their composition is close to that of hulls, with more protein and oil and less fibre when seeds fragments are present in larger amounts.

Ruminants 

Sunflower hulls are a very poor quality roughage with a high fibre content and a low digestibility (DM digestibility 18%; Alibes et al., 1990). Consequently, limited amounts of sunflower hulls should be included in diets (Dinusson et al., 1973) and should constitute less than 50% of the total roughage (Sharma et al., 1988). They are well consumed when finely ground and included in pelleted feeds (Dinusson et al., 1973).

Alkali treatments (NaOH, KOH or NH4OH) do not improve the nutritive value of sunflower hulls unless high doses are used (Sharma et al., 1988).

Growing cattle

Sunflower hulls may be included at up to 20% to increase the total fibre content in the diets of dairy heifers or to provide roughage in high-grain rations for growing or finishing beef cattle (Lardy et al., 2009).

Dairy heifers

Sunflower hulls included at 10 to 40% of the diet decreased nutrient digestibility (DM, CP, ADF). At 27%, the average daily gain was 1360 g/d and the feed efficiency was higher than for the control diet (+ 21%). A higher level of sunflower hulls in the diet (50%) was detrimental to DM intake and growth (Park et al., 1982).

Growing steers

Unground sunflower hulls introduced at 5 or 10% as roughage in the diet of fattening steers (374 kg) resulted in lower daily gains and DM intake (1240 vs. 1500 g/d and 0.766 kg/d vs. 0.840 kg/d respectively). However, using sunflower hulls could be cost-effective at this inclusion rate (Pritchard et al., 1990).

Sheep

In growing lambs, untreated or alkali-treated (NaOH, KOH or NH4OH) sunflower hulls included at 25% of the diet (replacing the same amount of alfalfa hay) had no effect on DM intake (1.1 to 1.5 kg/d), DM digestibility (63-66%) and daily weight loss (-0.11 kg/d) (Sharma et al., 1988).

Pigs 

Growing pigs

Sunflower hulls are not a suitable feed ingredient for growing pigs due to the large amount of insoluble fibre that they contain. However, sunflower hulls have been tested as a means to prevent or alleviate oesophago-gastric lesions in growing pigs. It was shown that a small amount of hulls (5%) added to a finely ground diet had a positive effect on animal health, but they were detrimental to pellet quality (Dirkzwager et al., 1998).

Sows

Feeding additional fibre to gestating sows has a generally positive effect on the number of pigs born alive and weaned. Sunflower hulls fed at 22% of the diet to gestating sows resulted in + 0.5 live piglets born and + 0.2 piglets weaned per litter (Reese et al., 2008). A high-fibre diet containing 35% ground sunflower hulls fed to pre-pubertal gilts slowed growth and pre-lactation mammary development but later enhanced sow lactation performance (Lyvers-Peffer et al., 2001).

Poultry 

Little information is known about the nutritive value of sunflower hulls in poultry. Up to 4-5% sunflower hulls can be introduced in broiler diets without negatively affecting performance, or the size of the digestive tract (Arija et al., 1998; Viveros et al., 2009).

In 2016 it has been shown that the inclusion (2.5-5%) of insoluble fibre sources such as sunflower hulls improved ADG and feed conversion ratio in broilers (0-21 day-old) fed low-fiber diets, particularly if the diet was pelletized. Growth performance of young broilers was improved with the addition of sunflower hulls regardless of feed form. Among insoluble fibre sources, sunflower hulls were more beneficial than rice hulls (Jimenez-Moreno et al., 2016). This result was consistent was observations in pullets (0-35 day-old) which received 2-4% sunflower hulls as a source of lignified insoluble fibre and had better feed intake and growth performance (Guzman et al., 2013).

Moreover, it was suggested that the inclusion of fibrous material in chicken diets could improve gut health, and it was shown that the inclusion of small amounts (3%) of sunflower hulls could improve digestive tract traits and increase AMEn of the diet in 21-day old female broilers and pullets (Kimiaeitalab et al., 2018). However, sunflower hulls are not a good ingredient for poultry: dehulled sunflower meals have a better ME than non-dehulled meals and there is a very strong negative correlation between the ME value of the meals and their fibre content (Villamide et al., 1998).

Rabbits 

In rabbit feeding, sunflower hulls can be considered as a safe ingredient. They are mainly a source of fibre, valuable for their very high lignin content. In compound feed diets, adding sunflower hulls makes it possible to reach the minimum level of lignin recommended for maintaining the digestive health of rabbits (minimum 5.0-5.5% according to the type of rabbits; Gidenne et al., 2010). The incorporation of sunflower hulls in the diets of growing rabbits reduces mortality caused by diarrhoea (Gippert et al., 1984). However, their contribution to energy supply is reduced because of their low energy digestibility (20 to 25%), normally associated with the high lignin level. The DE of sunflower hulls is about 4.4-5.5 MJ/kg DM. Similarly, the protein supplied by sunflower hulls is low as a poor protein content is combined with questionable protein digestibility values (measured values vary from 20% to more than 100%; Fernandez-Carmona et al., 1996; Gippert et al., 1988; Garcia et al., 1996a).

In balanced diets, the inclusion rate of sunflower hulls can be increased up to 15-20% without reducing growth and feed efficiency in growing rabbits (Martina, 1983; Gippert et al., 1988; Nicodemus et al., 2002), and reproductive performance in breeding does (Nicodemus et al., 2007). For experimental purposes, sunflower hulls were incorporated at up to 24 and 32% of the diet (Garcia et al., 1996a; Beltran et al., 1984; Chamorro et al., 2007), and in one trial at up to 62% (Garcia et al., 1996b) without causing health problems.

Nutritional tables
Tables of chemical composition and nutritional value 

Avg: average or predicted value; SD: standard deviation; Min: minimum value; Max: maximum value; Nb: number of values (samples) used

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 90.7 1.0 88.7 93.1 24
Crude protein % DM 7.0 1.8 4.7 11.1 28
Crude fibre % DM 50.8 6.9 33.3 59.3 32
NDF % DM 74.7 10.9 46.5 85.1 17
ADF % DM 60.1 3.5 53.4 66.5 17
Lignin % DM 22.2 3.9 12.9 30.9 18
Ether extract % DM 5.2 2.1 2.5 9.8 21
Ash % DM 3.8 0.6 3.1 5.7 25
Starch (polarimetry) % DM 3.4 2.6 4.3 2
Total sugars % DM 1.5 2.0 0.3 4.5 4
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 20.2 0.7 19.5 21.9 8 *
 
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 4.4 1.7 2.3 7.3 10
Phosphorus g/kg DM 1.3 0.7 0.5 2.6 8
Potassium g/kg DM 11.9 7.7 16.1 2
Sodium g/kg DM 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 3
Magnesium g/kg DM 2.6 1.4 3.8 2
Manganese mg/kg DM 16 5 26 2
Zinc mg/kg DM 23 13 33 2
Copper mg/kg DM 10 5 14 2
Iron mg/kg DM 137 134 140 2
 
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Arginine % protein 4.9 4.9 5.0 2
Cystine % protein 2.2 1.6 2.8 2
Glycine % protein 8.7 1
Histidine % protein 3.0 2.7 3.2 2
Isoleucine % protein 3.6 3.4 3.9 2
Leucine % protein 4.6 4.3 5.0 2
Lysine % protein 5.1 0.7 4.3 5.7 3
Methionine % protein 2.6 0.8 1.6 3.1 3
Phenylalanine % protein 3.7 3.6 3.9 2
Serine % protein 7.9 1
Threonine % protein 5.4 3.9 7.0 2
Tryptophan % protein 1.1 1
Valine % protein 4.0 3.4 4.5 2
 
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
DM digestibility, ruminants % 18.2 1
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 40 1
 
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 10.3 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 2.1 *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 1.5 *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 0.0 *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 35.5 1
 
Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, rabbit % 24.4 *
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 4.9 0.6 4.4 5.5 3
Nitrogen digestibility, rabbit % 33.5 19.2 47.7 2
MEn rabbit MJ/kg DM 4.8 *

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

References

AFZ, 2011; Alibes et al., 1990; Arija et al., 1998; Ashes et al., 1978; Bourdon, 1985; Chandra et al., 1985; Chapoutot et al., 1990; Enueme et al., 1987; Fernandez Carmona et al., 1996; Garcia et al., 1996; Gippert et al., 1988; Jordan et al., 1970; Karunajeewa et al., 1989; Leroy et al., 1949; Michalet-Doreau et al., 1980; Noblet, 2001; Pereira et al., 1999; Perez et al., 1984; Perez et al., 1986; Peteva-Vantcheva et al., 1976

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:45:11

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 90.1 1.3 86.8 93.1 39
Crude protein % DM 9.1 3.0 4.8 15.3 48
Crude fibre % DM 42.2 13.7 19.4 59.0 46
NDF % DM 71.7 12.9 42.1 84.7 18
ADF % DM 57.2 8.3 35.0 66.5 20
Lignin % DM 20.9 3.9 12.8 28.9 19
Ether extract % DM 8.5 4.1 2.5 17.8 39
Ash % DM 7.1 4.1 3.2 14.3 42
Starch (polarimetry) % DM 2.7 1.5 1.2 4.3 3
Total sugars % DM 1.5 2.0 0.3 4.5 4
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 20.1 1.4 18.3 23.6 13 *
 
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 7.9 5.9 2.3 19.5 16
Phosphorus g/kg DM 2.5 1.8 0.5 6.5 14
Potassium g/kg DM 11.6 4.2 7.7 16.1 3
Sodium g/kg DM 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 4
Magnesium g/kg DM 2.6 1.4 3.8 2
Manganese mg/kg DM 16 5 26 2
Zinc mg/kg DM 23 13 33 2
Copper mg/kg DM 10 5 14 2
Iron mg/kg DM 137 134 140 2
 
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Arginine % protein 4.9 4.9 5.0 2
Cystine % protein 2.2 1.6 2.8 2
Glycine % protein 8.7 1
Histidine % protein 3.0 2.7 3.2 2
Isoleucine % protein 3.6 3.4 3.9 2
Leucine % protein 4.6 4.3 5.0 2
Lysine % protein 5.1 0.7 4.3 5.7 3
Methionine % protein 2.6 0.8 1.6 3.1 3
Phenylalanine % protein 3.7 3.6 3.9 2
Serine % protein 7.9 1
Threonine % protein 5.4 3.9 7.0 2
Tryptophan % protein 1.1 1
Valine % protein 4.0 3.4 4.5 2
 
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 52.4 1
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 50.5 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 10.1 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 8.1 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 43.4 1
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 40 1
 
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 23.8 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 4.8 *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 4.2 *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 1.9 *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 35.5 1
 
Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, rabbit % 24.5 *
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 4.9 0.6 4.4 5.5 3
MEn rabbit MJ/kg DM 4.8 *
Nitrogen digestibility, rabbit % 33.5 19.2 47.7 2

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

References

AFZ, 2011; Alibes et al., 1990; Arija et al., 1998; Ashes et al., 1978; Bourdon, 1985; Chandra et al., 1985; Chapoutot et al., 1990; Enueme et al., 1987; Fernandez Carmona et al., 1996; Garcia et al., 1996; Gippert et al., 1988; Jordan et al., 1970; Karunajeewa et al., 1989; Leroy et al., 1949; Michalet-Doreau et al., 1980; Noblet, 2001; Pereira et al., 1999; Perez et al., 1984; Perez et al., 1986; Peteva-Vantcheva et al., 1976

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:45:45

References
References 
AAFC, 2007. Sunflower Seed - Profile. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Horticulture and Special Crops Division, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada web icon
Alibes, X. ; Tisserand, J. L., 1990. Tables of the nutritive value for ruminants of Mediterranean forages and by-products. Options Méditerranéennes : Série B Etudes et recherches ; numero 4. CIHEAM 152 p. web icon
Arija, I. ; Brenes, A. ; Viveros, A. ; Elices, R., 1998. Effects of inclusion of full-fat sunflower kernels and hulls in diets for growing broiler chickens. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 70 (1-2): 137-149 web icon
Bandemer, S. L. ; Evans, R. J., 1963. Nutrients in seeds, amino composition of some seeds. J. Agric. Food Chem., 11 (2): 134 web icon
Behgar, M. ; Valizadeh, R. ; Mirzaee, M. ; Naserian, A. A. ; Nasiri, M. R., 2009. Correlation between the physical and the chemical properties of some forages and non-forage fiber sources. J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 8 (11): 2280-2285 web icon
Beltran, M. T. ; Martinez, J. ; Fernandez, J. ; Cervera, C., 1984. Estimacion del valor nutritivo de diversas materias primas para conejos. Proc. III World Rabbit Congress, Rome, 1: 265-272
Borredon, M. E. ; Berger, M. ; Dauguet, S. ; Labalette, F. ; Merrien, A. ; Mouloungui, Z. ; Raoul, Y., 2011. Débouchés actuels et futurs du tournesol produit en France - Critères de qualité. Innovations Agronomiques, 14: 19-38 web icon
Bredon, R. M., 1957. Feeding of livestock in Uganda. Uganda Protectorate. Department of Veterinary Services and Animal Industry. Occasional Bulletin No. 1
Campbell, E. J., 1983. Sunflower oil. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc., 60 (2): 339A web icon
Cancalon, P., 1971. Chemical composition of sunflower seed hulls. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc., 48 (10): 629-632 web icon
Carré, P, 2009. Review and evaluation major and most promising processing technologies for oil seed pretreatment and extraction.Sustoil. D2.1: Report about dehulling, the first step of oilseeds bioreffining. Sustoil: Developing advanced Biorefinery schemes for integration into existing oil production/transesterification plants. WP 2: Optimisation of primary processing (e.g. oil extraction and refinery). Creol web icon
Chamorro, S. ; Gómez-Conde, M. S. ; Pérez de Rozas, A. M. ; Badiola, I. ; Carabaño, R. ; De Blas, J. C., 2007. Effect on digestion and performance of dietary protein content and of increased substitution of lucerne hay with soya-bean protein concentrate in starter diets for young rabbits. Animal, 1 (5): 651-659 web icon
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.
de Vuyst, A. ; Vervack, W. ; Van Belle, M. ; Arnould, R. ; Moreels, A., 1963. Amino acids in oil cakes. Agricultura, Louvain, 11:385-390
Dinusson, W. E. ; Haugse, C. N. ; Erickson, D. O. ; Knutson, R. D., 1973. Sunflower hull and corn roughage pellets, triticale and ergot in rations for beef cattle. Farm Research, 30 (4) : 35-39 web icon
Dirkzwager, A. ; Elbers, A. R. W. ; Aar, P. J. van der ; Vos, J. H., 1998. Effect of particle size and addition of sunflower hulls to diets on the occurrence of oesophagogastric lesions and performance in growing-finishing pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci., 56 (1): 53-60 web icon
Dorrell, G. D. ; Vick, B. A., 1997. Properties and processing of oilseed sunflower. In. Schneiter AA (ed) Sunflower technology and production. Agronomy monograph no. 35. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, Wis., pp 709–745
Fernandez-Carmona, J.; Cervera, C.; Blas, E., 1996. Prediction of the energy value of rabbit feeds varying widely in fibre content. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 64 (1): 61-75 web icon
Garcia, J. ; Villamide, María J. ; de Blas, J. C., 1996. Nutritive value of sunflower hulls, olive leaves and NaOH-treated barley straw for rabbits. 6th World Rabbit Congress, Toulouse web icon
Garcia, J. ; Carabaño, R. ; Perez Alba, L. ; De Blas, C., 1996. Effect of fibre source on neutral detergent fibre digestion and caecal traits in rabbits. Proc. 6th World Rabbit Congress, Toulouse, France, 9-12/07/1996, 1: 175-180
Garcia, J. ; Carabaño, R. ; Perez Alba, L. ; de Blas, C., 2000. Effect of fiber source on cecal fermentation and nitrogen recycled through cecotrophy in rabbits. J. Anim. Sci., 78 (3): 638–646 web icon
Gidenne, T.; García, J.; Lebas, F.; Licois, D., 2010. Nutrition and feeding strategy: interactions with pathology. In: Nutrition of the rabbit - 2nd edition. de Blas, C.; Wiseman, J. (Eds). CAB International, UK web icon
Gippert, T. ; Szabo-Lacza, S. ; Csonka, L., 1984. Utilization of sunflower husk mix in feeding meat-type rabbits. Allattenyesztesi es Takarmanyozasi Kutatokozpont Kozlemenyei: 289-291
Gippert, T. ; Hullar, I. ; Szabo, S., 1988. Nutritive value of agricultural by-products in rabbit. In: Proc. of the 4th World Rabbit Congress, Budapest, 3: 154-162
Grompone, M. A., 2005. Sunflower oil. In: Bailey’s Industrial Oil and Fat Products, Sixth Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc web icon
Guzmán, P.; Saldaña, B.; Sidrach, S.; Kimiaeitalab, M. V.; Pérez-Bonilla, A.; García, J.; Mateos, G. G., 2013. Influence of fiber inclusion in the diet on growth performance of brown-egg laying pullets from 1 to 35 days of age. XV Jorn. Prod. Anim., 14 y 15 de mayo, 2013, Zaragoza, AIDA: 225-227 web icon
Hsu, J. T. ; Faulkner, D. B. ; Garleb, K. A. ; Barclay, R. A. ; Fahey, G. C. ; Berger, L. L., 1987. Evaluation of corn fiber, cottonseed hulls, oat hulls and soybean hulls as roughage sources for ruminants. J. Anim. Sci., 65 (1): 244-255 web icon
Hurt, E. F., 1947. Sunflower for food, fodder and fertility. London, Faber and Faber
Jiménez-Moreno, E.; Coca-Sinova, A. de; González-Alvarado, J. M.; Mateos, G. G., 2016. Inclusion of insoluble fiber sources in mash or pellet diets for young broilers. 1. Effects on growth performance and water intake. Poult. Sci., 95 (1): 41-52 web icon
Jordan, R. M. ; Hanke, H. E., 1970. Antibiotics, ensiled corn, Ralgro, sunflower hulls, and self feeding all increase lamb gains. Feedstuffs, 42 (17): 44
Kartika, I. A., 2005. Nouveau procédé de fractionnement des graines de tournesol: expression et extraction en extrudeur bi-vis, purification par ultrafiltration de l’huile de tournesol. Thèse de doctorat. Institut national polytechnique de Toulouse, spécialité: Sciences des Agroressources web icon
Kimiaeitalab, M. V.; Mirzaie Goudarzi, S.; Jiménez-Moreno, E.; Cámara, L.; Mateos, G. G., 2018. A comparative study on the effects of dietary sunflower hulls on growth performance and digestive tract traits of broilers and pullets fed a pullet diet from 0 to 21 days of age. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 236: 57-67 web icon
Lardy, G. ; Anderson, V., 2009. Alternative feeds for ruminants. General concepts and recommendations for using alternative feeds. North Dakota State University Fargo, AS-1182 (Revised) 24 p. web icon
Leroy, A. M. ; François, A. ; Maîtrejean, H. ; Péronne, B., 1949. The chemical composition and nutritive value of animal feeds. Annls agron., 19: 791-797
Lyvers-Peffer, P. A. ; Rozeboom, D. W., 2001. The effects of a growth-altering pre-pubertal feeding regimen on mammary development and parity-one lactation potential in swine.. Livest. Prod. Sci., 70 (1-2): 167-173 web icon
Martina, C., 1983. New forage sources rich in cellulose for feeding rabbits. Rev. de Cresterea Animalelor, 33 (3): 9-12
Neumark, H., 1970. Personal communication. Volcani Institute of Agricutural Reseach, Israel
Nicodemus, N. ; García, J. ; Carabaño, R. ; de Blas, J. C., 2002. Effect of inclusion of sunflower hulls in the diet on performance, disaccharidase activity in the small intestine and caecal traits of growing rabbits. Anim. Sci., 75 (2) : 237-243 web icon
Nicodemus, N. ; Garcia, J. ; Carabano, R. ; De Blas, J. C., 2007. Effect of substitution of a soybean hull and grape seed meal mixture for traditional fiber sources on digestion and performance of growing rabbits and lactating does. J. Anim. Sci., 85 (1): 181-187 web icon
OECD, 2007. Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of sunflower: key food and feed nutrients, anti-nutrients and toxicants. Environment directorate, Joint meeting of the chemicals committee and the working party on chemicals, pesticides and biotechnology. Series on the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds, No. 16 web icon
Ørskov, E. R. ; Nakashima, Y. ; Abreu, J. M. F. ; Kibon, A. ; Tuah, A. K., 1992. Data on DM degradability of feedstuffs. Studies at and in association with the Rowett Research Organization, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, UK. Personal Communication
Park, C. S. ; Erickson, D. O. ; Fisher, G. R. ; Haugse, C. N., 1982. Effects of sunflower hulls on digestibility and performance of growing dairy heifers fed varying amounts of protein and fiber. J. Dairy Sci., 65 (1): 52-58 web icon
Park, C. S. ; Marx, G. D. ; Moon, Y. S. ; Wiesenborn, D. ; Chang, K. C. ; Hofman, V. L., 1997. Alternative uses of sunflower. In. Schneiter AA (ed) Sunflower technology and production. Agronomy monograph no. 35. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, Wisconsin, pp765-807
Pereira, J. C. ; Gonzalez, J. ; Alvir, M. R. ; Rodriguez, C., 1999. Ruminal degradation of soyabean, oat and sunflower husks. ITEA Produccion Animal, 20 (2): 511-513
Pritchard, R. H. ; Robbins, M. A., 1990. Use of sunflower hulls as the roughage component of finishing diets for yearling steers. In: South Dakota beef report, South Dakota State University, Brookings: 9-11 web icon
Reese, R. ; Prosch, A. ; Travnicek, D. A. ; Eskridge, K. M., 2008. Dietary fiber in sow gestation diets - An updated review. Nebraska Swine Reports, Paper 45 web icon
Sharma, B. K. ; Clark, A. K. ; Drackley, J. K. ; Sahlua, T. ; Schingoethe, D. J., 1988. Digestibility in vitro and by sheep of sunflower hulls treated with sodium, potassium and ammonium hydroxides. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 68: 987-992 web icon
Van Wyk, H. P. D. ; Oosthuizen, S. A. ; Basson, I. D., 1951. The nutritive value of South African feeds. Part II. Hay and Pasture Crops. Union of South Africa. Department of Agriculture and Forestry. Science Bulletin No. 298
Vargas, M.; Urbá, R.; Enero, R.; Báez, H.; Pardo, P.; Visconti, C., 1965. Composición de alimentos chilenos de uso en ganadería y avicultura. Santiago. Ministerio de Agricultura. Instituto de Investigación Veterinaria.
Villamide, M. J. ; San Juan, L. D., 1998. Effect of chemical composition of sunflower seed meal on its true metabolizable energy and amino acid digestibility. Poult. Sci., 77 (12): 1884-1892 web icon
Viveros, A. ; Ortiz, L. T. ; Rodriguez, M. L. ; Rebole, A. ; Alzueta, C. ; Arija, I. ; Centeno, C. ; Brenes, A., 2009. Interaction of dietary high-oleic-acid sunflower hulls and different fat sources in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci., 88: 141-151. web icon
Walker, C. A., 1975. Personal communication. Central Research Station, Mazabuka, N. Rhodesia
Woodman, H. E., 1945. The composition and nutritive value of feeding stuffs. United Kingdom. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Bulletin No. 124
53 references found
Datasheet citation 

Heuzé V., Tran G., Hassoun P., Lessire M., Lebas F., 2018. Sunflower hulls and sunflower screenings. Feedipedia, a programme by INRAE, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. https://feedipedia.org/node/733 Last updated on April 3, 2018, 13:27

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