Velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens)
Description and recommendations
 |
 |
Common names
Mucuna, dolic, haricot de Floride, haricot de Maurice, po de mico, fava coceira, cabeca de frade, mauritius bean, itchy bean, krame, chiporro, buffalobean, velvet bean, picapica, bengal bean, fríjol terciopelo, mucuna, café incasa, nescafé, café listo, fríjol abono, cowitch, cowhage, pois mascate, pois velus
Synonyms
Carpopogon capitatum Roxb., Carpopogon capitatus Roxb., Carpopogon niveum Roxb., Macranthus cochinchinensis Lour., Mucuna aterrima (Piper & Tracy) Holland, Mucuna atrocarpa F.P. Metcalf, Mucuna capitata Wight & Arn., Mucuna deeringiana (Bort) Merr., Mucuna hassjoo (Piper & Tracy) Mansf., Mucuna martinii H. Lev. & Vaniot, Mucuna nivea (Roxb.) Wight & Arn., Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC. var. capitata Burck, Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC. var. capitata (Wight & Arn.) Burck, Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC. var. nivea (Roxb.) Haines, Mucuna utilis Wight, Stizolobium aterrimum Piper & Tracy, Stizolobium deeringianum Bort, Stizolobium hassjoo Piper & Tracy, Stizolobium pruriens (L.) Medik., Stizolobium pruriens (L.) Medik. var. hassjoo (Piper & Tracy) Makino, Stizolobium utile (Wall. ex Wight) Ditmer, Stizolobium niveum (Roxb.) Kuntze
Related feed(s)
Description
Velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC. var. utilis (Wall. ex Wight) Baker ex Burck) is an annual (sometimes short-lived perennial), vigorous trailing or climbing leguminous vine that can be up to 6-18 m long (US Forest Service, 2011; Wulijarni-Soetjipto et al., 1997). Velvet bean has a taproot with numerous, 7-10 m long, lateral roots. The stems are slender and slightly pubescent (Wulijarni-Soetjipto et al., 1997). The leaves are generally slightly pubescent, alternate, trifoliolate with rhomboid ovate, 5-15 cm long x 3-12 cm broad, leaflets (US Forest Service, 2011; Wulijarni-Soetjipto et al., 1997). The inflorescence is a drooping axillary raceme that bears many white to dark purple flowers. After flower pollination, velvet bean produces clusters of 10 to 14 pods. They are stout, curved, 10-12.5 cm long, 2-6 seeded, covered with greyish-white or orange hairs that may cause irritation to the skin (US Forest Service, 2011). The velvet bean seeds are variable in colour, ranging from black glossy to white or brownish with black mootling. Seeds are oblong ellipsoid, 1.2 to 1.5 cm long, 1 cm broad and 0.5 cm thick (FAO, 2011; US Forest Service, 2011; Wulijarni-Soetjipto et al., 1997).
Velvet bean has three main uses: food, feed (forage and seeds) and environmental services. The young leaves, pods and seeds are edible and used in several food specialties including "tempeh" a fermented paste made of boiled seeds, originally from Indonesia. Velvet bean is also used as a coffee substitute in Central America (Eilittä et al., 2003). The plant provides can be a cover crop and provide fodder and green manure. In the USA, velvet bean is also used as an ornamental species (Wulijarni-Soetjipto et al., 1997). There are numerous cultivars of velvet bean in the world (FAO, 2011).
Velvet bean is a valuable fodder and feed legume. Vines and foliage can be used as pasture, hay or silage for ruminants while pods and seeds can be ground into a meal and be fed to both ruminants and monogastrics (Chikagwa-Malunga et al., 2009d; Eilittä et al., 2003). Pods with their seeds can be ground into a rich protein meal and can be fed to all classes of livestock though in limited amount in monogastrics (Chikagwa-Malunga et al., 2009d)
Distribution
Velvet bean originated from southern Asia and Malaysia and is now widely distributed in the tropics (FAO, 2011). It was introduced to the southern states of USA in the late 19th century and from there was reintroduced to the tropics in the early part of the 20th century (Eilittä et al., 2003). Velvet bean is found from sea level to 2100 m (Ecocrop, 2011). Velvet bean requires a hot moist climate with annual rainfall ranging from 650 to 2500 mm and a long frost-free growing season during the wet months. It can grow on a wide range of soils, from sands to clays but thrives on well-drained, light textured soils of appreciable acidity (FAO, 2011; Pengelly et al., 2004).
Forage management
Yields
Velvet bean is suitable in intercropping systems where it is grown with maize (Cook et al., 2005), pearl millet, sorghum or sugarcane for support (Göhl, 1982). The crop gives reliable yields in dry farming and low soil fertility conditions that do no allow the profitable cultivation of most other food legumes (Buckles et al., 1998). Velvet bean yields range from 10 to 35 t green material/ha and from 250 to 3300 kg seeds/ha depending on the cultivation conditions (Ecocrop, 2011).
Velvet bean pods harvest can start as soon as the pods start turning from green to dark brown or black; in Malaysia this is possible 215 to 255 days after sowing. Pods are harvested by hand (Wulijarni-Soetjipto et al., 1997).
Grazed pasture
Animals can enter the sward after the pods have matured. In Hawai, grazing 170 to 220 days after sowing resulted in yields of 19 t/ha of green forage and 3.85 t/ha of seeds (Takahashi et al., 1949 cited by FAO, 2011).
Cut forage
When velvet bean is intended for forage, it may be harvested 90-120 days after sowing, when the pods are still young (Wulijarni-Soetjipto et al., 1997; Ravindran, 1988). Harvesting at about 120 days after planting resulted in the best combination of biomass yield and nutritive value (Chikagwa-Malunga et al., 2009a). In Malaysia, the first harvest for fodder can be done 2 months after sowing. A cutting interval of 5 weeks and cutting at a height of 30 cm provides a reasonable yield of forage of adequate quality (Wulijarni-Soetjipto et al., 1997). Yields of green fodder may be up to 20-35 t/ha resulting in 8.2-16.4 t DM/ha (Ecocrop, 2011).
Hay
Because of its dense matted growth, velvet bean is difficult to harvest and cure for hay (FAO, 2011). Yields of hay average 2.8-3.6 t/ha (Ecocrop, 2011).
Silage
Velvet bean may be cultivated for silage, but as it is hard to harvest, flail-type harvesters do a better job than mowing machines. Velvet bean can be grown in mixture and then ensiled with a grain crop (maize is the most frequent crop but sorghum is also possible) or with grasses such as Napier grass (Contreras-Govea et al., 2009; Mbuthia et al., 2003). However, because velvet bean is rather diffcult to harvest, it is also recommended to grow velvet beans and the companion crop separately and then mix when ensiling (FAO, 2011).
Processes
Many treatments have been proposed to decrease the content in antinutritional factors of the seeds, such as boiling in water for one hour, autoclaving for 20 minutes, water-soaking for 48 h and then boiling for 30 minutes, or soaking the cracked seeds for 24 h in 4 % Ca(OH)2 (Cook et al., 2005, Pugalenthi et al., 2005).
Environmental impact
Cover crop and soil improver
The main attributes of velvet bean are its fast growth and its long growing season in frost-free environments. It is thus possible for velvet bean to protect the soil along the wet monsoonal season (FAO, 2011; Cook et al., 2005).
Velvet bean is a N-fixing legume that has no specific rhizobium requirements, N fixation is favoured by warm temperatures (FAO, 2011).
As a leguminous species velvet bean is reported to improve soil fertility, it provides more than 10 t DM aboveground biomass/ha and it yields some 331 kg N/ha, equivalent to 1615 kg ammonium sulfate/ha (Cook et al., 2005; Buckles et al., 1998; Wulijarni-Soetjipto et al., 1997; King et al., 1965). Velvet bean also yields 100 kg K ha-1, and 20 kg P ha-1 (Buckles et al., 1998). In Central America, it is widely grown either relay planted with maize or as a rainy season fallow crop in rotation with dry season maize and it was reported to improve maize yield by 500 kg/ha just after a 1-year fallow or even as much as 1-2 t/ha (ILRI, 2004; Wulijarni-Soetjipto et al., 1997).
Velvet bean is mainly grown as a cover crop and green manure because it can establish very quickly without requiring complete soil preparation (Cook et al., 2005). In intercropping systems including maize and velvet bean, the fast growing legume accumulates nutrient through N fixation and it protects the soil from heavy rains in the rainy season. Once slashed into a the thick mulch, the velvet bean foliage protects the soil from erosion and prevents weeds germination. Velvet bean has also a positive effect on soil moisture (Buckles et al., 1998).
As a cover crop, velvet bean sown in rubber plantation can yield about 2 t/ha of fresh organic matter within 6 months (Wulijarni-Soetjipto et al., 1997). It has been planted as a cover crop under coconut plantations in Sri Lanka (Ravindran, 1988). It used to be an important cover crop in citrus and banana plantations (Wulijarni-Soetjipto et al., 1997).
Weeds and pest control
Velvet bean has an overall beneficial effect on companion crops in intercropping systems due to its pest resistance and disease resistance. When established, the crop smothers weeds effectively (FAO, 2011). Velvet bean is one of the most suitable crops for reclaiming land infested with weeds, notably Cynodon dactylon, Cyperus species, Saccharum spontaneum and Imperata cylindrica (Hellin, 2006; Wulijarni-Soetjipto et al., 1997). It is recommended for use in rotation with cotton in Brazil to limit Fusarium oxysporum infestation; it can also effectively control nematodes infestations by species such as Meloidogyne incognita (Wolf et al., 2003; Wulijarni-Soetjipto et al., 1997).
Potential constraints
Most toxicological problems due to velvet bean are due to its seeds.
L-dopa
Velvet bean seeds and, in a smaller extent, stems and leaves contain two important non-protein amino-acids: L-dopa from which dopamine, a potent anti-Parkinson disease agent, is prepared, and DMP (dimethyltriptamine), an hallucinogenic substance. L-dopa content varies from 1.6-7 % (Cook et al., 2005; Wulijarni-Soetjipto et al., 1997). Ensiling was able to decrease L-dopa content in the seeds by 10-47% (Matenga et al., 2003).
L-dopa is a potent antinutritional factor (Siddhuraju et al., 2002) and may cause severe vomiting and diarrhoea in pigs fed large quantities of velvet bean seeds. It is less harmful in ruminants: it does not seem to modify rumen fermentation and there is a ruminal microbial adaptation to L-Dopa (Chikagwa-Malunga et al., 2009b). Trials in sheep and goats fed velvet beans and pods did not found that L-dopa had adverse effects (Matenga et al., 2003; Castillo-Camaal et al., 2003a; Pérez-Hernandez et al., 2003; Castillo-Camaal et al., 2003b; Mendoza-Castillo et al., 2003)
Alkaloids
The seed contains a number of alkaloids, notably mucunaine, prurienine and serotine. Mucunaine is produced by pod hairs. It causes severe itching to the skin and the hairs coming in contact with the eyes can be very painful. L-dopa may also be implicated in skin eruptions (Pugalenthi et al., 2005). The negative effects of mucunain are potentialized by serotonin (Cook et al., 2005). It has been reported that haemorrhage and death can result from cattle eating the hairy pods (Miller, 2000). Pod hairs have the same anthelmintic efficacy as piperazine against ascariasis in buffalo calves (Behura et al., 2006)
Other antinutritional factors
Velvet bean seeds contains other antinutritional factors:
- Trypsin and chymotrypsin-inhibiting activities that decrease protein digestibility, induce pancreatic hypertrophy and hyperplasia, increase trypsin secretion and therefore reduce N retention, growth and feed conversion (Pugalenthi et al., 2005; van Eys et al., 2004; Rackis et al., 1986).
- Phytate content is relatively high in the seeds and may reduce mineral and protein availability (Pugalenthi et al., 2005),
- Oligosaccharides (mainly verbascose) cause flatulence (Pugalenthi et al., 2005),
- HCN is found in velvet bean seeds, but in amounts well below (5.8 mg/100g) the lethal dosis (35 mg/100g) (Pugalenthi et al., 2005),
- Lectins and saponins are also found (Pugalenthi et al., 2005).
These antinutritional factors can be efficiently reduced by a wide range of treatments (See Processes).
Nutritional attributes
Velvet been forage contains 15-20 % protein (DM basis) (Sidibé-Anago et al., 2009). Seeds are rich in protein (24-30 %), starch (28 %) and gross enery (10-11 MJ/kg) (Pugalenthi et al., 2005; Siddhuraju et al., 2000). They also contain desirable amino acids, fatty acids and have a good mineral composition (Vadivel et al., 2007). The main problem with velvet bean seeds, notably in monogastric animals, are the various antinutritional factors they contain (see Potential constraints above).
Tables of chemical composition and nutritional value
Ruminants
Both meat and milk production can benefit from including legumes such as velvet beans forage and pods in feeds (Pengelly et al., 2004).
Pasture is the most important use of velvet bean. It is never well grazed by stock until it is well matured or frosted. It makes rather poor hay, especially if cut when mature, as the leaves easily fall off; also, the long vines are difficult to handle. Good silage can be made from velvet bean together with its supporting crop. It usually turns black after a time, but without impairing its quality (Göhl, 1982). Maize cultivated with velvet bean can be ensiled without any adverse effect on silage quality (Contreras-Govea et al., 2009). In Honduras, farmers developed for several years a valuable maize cropping system using velvet bean (Buckles et al., 1999).
Ruminants can also be fed pods and seeds. It is more economical to grind the whole pods rather than to separate the pods and the seeds (Göhl, 1982).
Growing and fattening cattle
Velvet bean forage was found to be an interesting feed for ruminants even in areas with low fertility and a short rainy season. Zebu cows and heifers fed low quality hay could ingest 61.8 to 76 g/kg W0.75 of velvet bean hay (Sidibé-Anago et al., 2009). It proved to be a cost-effective forage legume for growing cattle on natural rangeland (veld) in Zimbabwe: the animals gained weight when supplemented with velvet hay at 1.5 % W or more (20 kg in 3 months at 2 % W) and lost weight when not supplemented or supplemented at 1 % W (-40 and -20 kg respectively) (Murungweni et al., 2004). In pen-fattened animals, velvet bean hay could also substitute for the commercial concentrate, and a diet of maize grain and velvet bean hay (5:3 ratio) plus ad libitum access to maize stover gave similar weight gain as the control diet (Murungweni et al., 2004).
Dairy cattle
In dairy cows, several trials in East and Southern Africa have shown that supplementation of grass-based diets with velvet bean forage, fresh or hay, can increase production (compared to non-supplemented diets) or maintain it (compared to other protein supplements).
| Dairy cattle trials | ||||
|
Place |
Animals |
Diet |
Performance |
References |
|
Kenya |
Jersey cows |
Chopped velvet bean (1.4 kg DM/d) + Napier grass + maize bran |
Milk 6.3 kg/d (12 weeks) |
|
|
Kenya |
Jersey cows |
Chopped velvet bean (2 kg DM/d) + Napier grass + maize bran |
Milk 5.5 kg/d (24 weeks) |
|
|
Kenya |
Jersey cows |
Chopped velvet bean (1.6 kg DM/d) + Napier grass + maize bran |
Milk 5.3 kg/d |
|
|
Kenya |
Holstein–Friesian cows |
Velvet bean hay (2.1 kg DM/day) + Napier grass |
Milk 3.75 kg/d |
|
|
Zimbabwe |
Jersey cows |
Velvet bean hay + crushed maize grain in 5:4 ratio |
Milk 9.0 kg/d |
|
When compared to other legumes (Gliricidia sepium, Lablab purpureus and Clitoria ternatea), fresh velvet bean forage resulted in lower (Mureithi et al., 2003) or identical milk yield (Juma et al., 2006), but another comparison with Gliricidia in similar conditions resulted in higher milk yield for velvet bean forage (Muinga et al., 2003). A mucuna hay-based diet gave higher milk yield than the lablab hay-based one and Jersey cows eating lablab- and mucuna-based diets produced good quality milk that met the expected minimum market standards (Murungweni et al., 2004).
When cultivated in association with maize, velvet bean forage increased the protein content of the mixture, but did not increase the milk yield of dairy cattle (Armstrong et al., 2008).
Draught cattle
Velvet bean hay can significantly benefit smallholder farmers who rely on cattle as draught power. It is necessary for such farmers to supplement their animals during the dry winter season if they are to retain the draught capacity of the animals for the following season (Murungweni et al., 2004).
Sheep and goats
In young rams, velvet bean hay caused metabolic disorders (diarrhoea) if given in excess of 2.6 % of the animal bodyweight. Feeding velvet bean hay at 2.5 % bodyweight in the morning and poor-quality roughage such as wheat bran or maize stover in the afternoon was found to be a good solution (Murungweni et al., 2004)
Other trials have focused on the supplementation of forage diets with mucuna seeds and pods. Velvet beans were able support growth and milk production and improved performances when compared to grazing or grass-only diets. They also compared favourably with other supplements, though they may give lower results in some cases. No adverse effects were recorded (Castillo-Camaal et al., 2003a; Pérez-Hernandez et al., 2003; Castillo-Camaal et al., 2003b; Chikagwa-Malunga et al., 2009c; Mendoza-Castillo et al., 2003; Matenga et al., 2003).
The addition a small quantity of molasses may improve consumption (Matenga et al., 2003) and reduce dustiness (Pérez-Hernandez et al., 2003).
Ensiling decreases L-dopa content and increases energy intake and N retention but lowers the crude protein, so that milk production is not increased (Matenga et al., 2003).
| Sheep trials | ||||
|
Place |
Animals |
Diet |
Performance |
References |
|
Mexico |
Pelibuey growing males |
5-10 g/kg W pods + Napier grass |
ADG 60 g/d (44 with control diet) |
|
|
Mexico |
Male growing lambs |
Ground pods (20%) + concentrate (20%) + Napier grass (60%) + 200 g molasses |
DMI 780 g/d DMD 68 % |
|
|
Mexico |
Male growing lambs |
Ground pods (40%) + Napier grass (60%) + 200 g molasses |
DMI 650 g/d DMD 64 % |
|
|
Mexico |
Male growing lambs |
Ad libitum ground pods (5 kg to 4 animals / day), with 300 g molasses |
DMI 680 g/d |
|
|
Mexico, farm trial |
Growing lambs |
400 g/d ground pods + grazing secondary vegetation |
ADG 95 g/d (63 g/d when only grazing) |
|
|
USA (Florida) |
Rambouillet wether lambs |
Rolled mucuna seeds (0-24% replacing 0-100% of soybean meal) + concentrate + Bermuda grass |
DMI 1.4-1.6 kg/d DMD 77-80 % No difference between treatments |
|
|
USA (Florida) |
Rambouillet wether lambs |
Rolled mucuna seeds (0-23% replacing 0-100% of soybean meal) + concentrate + Bermuda grass |
ADG 130-140 g/d (200 g/d for control diet). Good rumen conditions. No differences on carcass composition. |
|
| Goat trials | ||||
|
Place |
Animals |
Diet |
Performance |
References |
|
Mexico |
Lactating Creole goats |
870 g/d ground seeds + Napier grass |
Milk 600 g/d. Total DMI and milk yield positively correlated to mucuna intake Slight trend for weight loss |
|
|
Mexico, farm trial |
Lactating goats |
500 g/d ground pods + grazing secondary vegetation |
Weight loss -0.85 kg in 70 d (-1.4 kg when only grazing) |
|
|
Mexico, farm trial |
Growing kids, pre-suckling |
400 g/d ground pods + grazing secondary vegetation |
ADG 130-214 g/d (86-110 when only grazing) |
|
|
Mexico, farm trial |
Growing kids, post-suckling |
400 g/d ground pods + grazing secondary vegetation |
ADG 100 g/d with or without pods |
|
|
Zimbabwe |
Lactating Mashona goats |
Ground seeds + ground maize (50:50), ensiled (1.2 kg/d DM) or not (1.1 kg/d DM) |
Milk 0.61-0.62 L/d DMI 718 g/d (fresh) DMI 935 g/d (ensiled) Ensiling increases intake but not milk yield or kid weight gain |
|
Pigs
The relatively high protein and energy value of velvet bean seeds make them an interesting feed for pigs (Pugalenthi et al., 2005). In some cases, pigs are allowed to graze velvet bean pastures to consume the beans that have been left behind (Göhl, 1982).
However, the use of velvet bean seeds is limited by their deficiency in sulphur amino acids (Pugalenthi et al., 2005) and by the presence of numerous antinutritional and toxic factors (see Caution). Feeding raw seeds can result in deleterious effects on the performance as well as blood constituents (Sridhar et al., 2007) and pigs should not be allowed to consume large amounts of velvet bean, either as forage or seeds (Göhl, 1982). Various maximum inclusion rates have been reported: some authors claim that it can be included up to 25 % while others found that such rate may cause severe vomiting and diarrhoea and proposed 5% as a much safer rate (Emenalom et al., 2004). The incorporation of 15 % of raw velvet beans in pig feeding caused 50% mortality in young animals (Emenalom et al., 2004).
In any case, processing velvet bean seeds is mandatory in order to be able to use them safely in pig feeds. Boiled seeds included at 25 % could satisfyingly replace maize in 40 kg pigs (Lizama et al., 2003). A more extensive process consisting in cracking the seeds, soaking them in water for 48 h and boiling them for 1 hour allowed to use the seeds up to 40 % in the diets of 15-35 kg pigs and to fully replace soybean meal while maintaining growth rate (341-351 g/d) and feed conversion ratio (2.53-2.58) (Emenalom et al., 2004).
Poultry
While proximate composition of velvet bean seeds makes it tempting to use it in poultry diets, the presence of antinutritional factors limits their practical interest, unless appropriate technological treatments are found (Carew et al., 2006).
Broilers, quails and Guinea fowls
Raw mucuna seeds should be avoided in broilers. Processed seeds (by dry roasting or soaking+boiling) can be included up to 10 %, with an adapted feed formulation, but even processed seeds should be used carefully and probably avoided in starter animals.
Performance is strongly degraded in broilers fed raw mucuna (Harms et al., 1961; Ferriera et al., 2003; Emiola et al., 2007; Emenalom et al., 2005b; Tuleun et al., 2008a). Degradation can occur at low incorporation levels: 5 % raw velvet bean can induce a 25 % drop in animal performances (Iyayi et al., 2006b). Significant mortality can be registered at high levels (Harms et al., 1961; Del Carmen et al., 1999). The effect is similar in Guinea fowl (Dahouda et al., 2009a). Velvet bean seems to be more detrimental to growth than to feed intake, although results differ among authors (Trejo et al., 2004; Emiola et al., 2007; Tuleun et al., 2008a, etc.). The feed conversion ratio is always strongly degraded.
Technological treatments, and particularly heat treatments, can help to reduce the negative effects of velvet bean (Carew et al., 2006). However, performance is seldom completely restored compared to control diets even if differences can be statistically non significant at lower inclusion rates. The main treatments that have been tested include: soaking (with or without additives in water), boiling, autoclaving, dry roasting and combinations of these techniques. These treatments help to decrease the levels of antinutritional factors such as antitrypsic factors, L-dopa, tannins and hemagglutination factors (Vadivel et al., 2011).
Dry roasting has been found to be an efficient way to limit the negative effects of velvet bean in broilers but also in Japanese quails (Del Carmen et al., 1999; Emiola et al., 2007; Ukachukwu et al., 2007b; Tuleun et al., 2009a). However some authors compared various treatments and found roasting less efficient than boiling in broilers and in Guinea fowls (Emenalom et al., 2005b; Dahouda et al., 2009a).
Regarding wet treatments, soaking alone (in water with ou without additives) is not efficient (Nyirenda et al., 2003; Tuleun et al., 2010b; Vadivel et al., 2011) and soaking should be combined to a heat treatment such as boiling or autoclaving. The duration of thermal treatments can have an effect: boiling velvet bean seeds for 20 min resulted in lower growth performance than 40 or 60 min (Tuleun et al., 2008a). For several authors, the optimal treatment consists in soaking (in water or Na bicarbonate) followed by boiling (60 to 90 min) and drying. This procedure was found to eliminate antinutritional factors efficiently (Vadivel et al., 2011) and allows to maintain performances up to 10-20% inclusion (Ukachukwu et al., 2003a; Akinmutimi et al., 2006; Emenalom et al., 2006; Ukachukwu, 2007a; Ami, 2008; for Guinea fowls, Farougou et al., 2006). However, even roasted and soaked+boiled seeds can degrade performances at low inclusion rates (6-10 %) (Emenalom et al., 2005a; Iyayi et al., 2003; Vadivel et al., 2011).
Thermal treatment also improved protein digestibility, probably by inactivation of the antinutritional factors: for example 1 h dry exposure at 100°C increased protein digestibility from 65 % to 74 % (Iyayi et al., 2008).
The metabolizable energy value of velvet bean seeds varies with the process:
| Process | Energy type | Energy value | References |
| Raw seed | TME | 4.4 MJ/kg | Ukachukwu et al., 1999 |
| Toasted | TME | 12.6 MJ/kg | Ukachukwu et al., 1999 |
| Boiled | TME | 13.5 MJ/kg | Ukachukwu et al., 1999 |
| Soaked and boiled | TME | 13.4 MJ/kg | Ukachukwu et al., 1999 |
| Boiled | AME | 13.1 MJ/kg | Emiola et al., 2007 |
| Toasted | AME | 13.0 MJ/kg | Emiola et al., 2007 |
Laying hens and quails
Using velvet bean seeds, even when processed, is not recommended in commercial egg production though economic considerations may make them profitable.
The use of raw velvet bean seeds in layer diets causes a strong degradation of performance. Daily egg production dropped from 78.5 % to 65.5 % with 12.5 % of raw seeds (Harms et al., 1961) and from 84 % to 38 % with 20 % of raw seeds (Tuleun et al., 2008b).
Technological treatments reduce the negative effects of velvet bean seeds, but do not enable the same performances as the control diets: in laying hens, the best treatment (toasting) allowed 74 % hen-day egg production vs 84 % in the control with 20 % velvet bean seeds, while boiled seeds yielded 59 % hen-day egg production (Tuleun et al., 2008b). In laying Japanese quails, 15 % of toasted seeds caused a significant degradation of the performances, but the lower feed cost per egg produced and feed cost per bird made using velvet bean seeds profitable (Tuleun et al., 2010b). Egg composition and quality were not affected by the inclusion of velvet bean seeds (Iyayi et al., 2003; Tuleun et al., 2008b).
Rabbits
Velvet bean seed meal and velvet bean leaves can be fed to rabbits.
Seeds and leaves can be fed together to rabbits, resulting in higher intake, increased diet digestibility and higher growth rates (208 g/week vs 67 g/week on basal diet) (Aboh et al., 2002). Up to 20 % cooked mucuna seed meal can be included in the diet of weaned rabbits (Taiwo et al., 2006). Velvet bean leaves compared favourably with soybean meal and gave similar daily weight gains (15 g/day vs 16 g/day) (Bien-aimé et al., 1989).
Fish
Velvet bean seeds, like other tropical legume seeds, are a potential feed ingredient for fish diets, due to their high protein and carbohydrate content, that make them a potential substitute for fish meal and cereals (Ogunji et al., 2003). However, their use is limited by the presence of antinutritional factors and by an amino acid profile that does not meet fish requirements (Ogunji et al., 2003). Heat treatments as well as supplementation with other protein sources are therefore required (Hertrampf et al., 2000; Ogunji et al., 2003).
Velvet beans have been tested in the following fish species:
African catfish (Clarias gariepinus)
Low inclusion rates (5 %) of raw velvet bean seeds were recommended in juveniles of African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) (Aderolu et al., 2009).
Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)
In tilapia diets, it was possible to replace up to 25 % of the dietary protein with soaked and autoclaved velvet bean seeds (Siddhuraju et al., 2003).
Common carp (Cyprinus carpio)
For common carps (Cyprinus carpio), the level of L-Dopa should not behigher than 7 g/kg in the diet. The level of raw or processed velvet bean seeds should not exceed 20 % as it has deleterious effects on growth rate and feed utilisation (Siddhuraju et al., 2001; Siddhuraju et al., 2002).
Feed categories
Citation
Heuzé V., Tran G., Bastianelli D., Hassoun P., Renaudeau D., 2012. Velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens). Feedipedia.org. A programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. http://www.feedipedia.org/node/270 Last updated on October 11, 2012, 13:49
Tables
Tables of chemical composition and nutritional value
| Main analysis | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| Dry matter | % as fed | 24.7 | 7.8 | 15.0 | 45.4 | 17 | |
| Crude protein | % DM | 16.0 | 4.1 | 10.2 | 25.9 | 23 | |
| Crude fibre | % DM | 27.1 | 5.9 | 14.2 | 36.6 | 18 | |
| NDF | % DM | 38.5 | 25.4 | 10.3 | 59.6 | 3 | |
| ADF | % DM | 34.2 | 15.6 | 7.1 | 45.6 | 5 | |
| Lignin | % DM | 12.5 | 2.4 | 10.0 | 14.9 | 3 | |
| Ether extract | % DM | 2.4 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 4.7 | 18 | |
| Ash | % DM | 7.9 | 1.8 | 5.2 | 12.2 | 23 | |
| Gross energy | MJ/kg DM | 18.6 | * | ||||
| Minerals | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| Calcium | g/kg DM | 10.3 | 2.4 | 6.3 | 14.2 | 20 | |
| Phosphorus | g/kg DM | 1.9 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 3.1 | 17 | |
| Potassium | g/kg DM | 15.6 | 5.8 | 6.7 | 24.9 | 19 | |
| Sodium | g/kg DM | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 6 | |
| Magnesium | g/kg DM | 2.8 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 4.5 | 19 | |
| Manganese | mg/kg DM | 70 | 14 | 126 | 2 | ||
| Zinc | mg/kg DM | 71 | 75 | 23 | 157 | 3 | |
| Copper | mg/kg DM | 20 | 6 | 16 | 27 | 3 | |
| Iron | mg/kg DM | 740 | 335 | 1145 | 2 | ||
| Secondary metabolites | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| Tannins (eq. tannic acid) | g/kg DM | 18.0 | 1 | ||||
| Ruminant nutritive values | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| OM digestibility, Ruminant | % | 68.1 | 68.0 | 69.8 | 2 | * | |
| Energy digestibility, ruminants | % | 65.1 | * | ||||
| DE ruminants | MJ/kg DM | 12.1 | * | ||||
| ME ruminants | MJ/kg DM | 9.7 | * | ||||
| Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants | % | 74.0 | 73.0 | 75.0 | 2 |
The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.
References
Adjolohoun, 2008; Axtmayer et al., 1938; Barnes, 1999; CIRAD, 1991; Devendra et al., 1970; Diaz et al., 2002; Gowda et al., 2004; Juma et al., 2006; Ly et al., 2002; Pozy et al., 1996; Xandé et al., 1989
Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:45:16
| Main analysis | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| Dry matter | % as fed | 90.6 | 1 | ||||
| Crude protein | % DM | 14.8 | 1 | ||||
| Crude fibre | % DM | 30.7 | 1 | ||||
| Ether extract | % DM | 2.6 | 1 | ||||
| Ash | % DM | 8.9 | 1 | ||||
| Gross energy | MJ/kg DM | 18.5 | * | ||||
| Ruminant nutritive values | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| OM digestibility, Ruminant | % | 60.8 | * | ||||
| Energy digestibility, ruminants | % | 57.3 | * | ||||
| DE ruminants | MJ/kg DM | 10.6 | * | ||||
| ME ruminants | MJ/kg DM | 8.5 | * | ||||
| Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants | % | 63.9 | 1 |
The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.
References
Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:45:16
| Main analysis | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| Dry matter | % as fed | 89.2 | 1 | ||||
| Crude protein | % DM | 4.3 | 1 | ||||
| Crude fibre | % DM | 42.4 | 1 | ||||
| Ether extract | % DM | 0.7 | 1 | ||||
| Ash | % DM | 5.9 | 1 | ||||
| Gross energy | MJ/kg DM | 18.3 | * | ||||
| Ruminant nutritive values | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| OM digestibility, Ruminant | % | 80.7 | * | ||||
| Pig nutritive values | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| Energy digestibility, growing pig | % | 23.5 | * | ||||
| DE growing pig | MJ/kg DM | 4.3 | * |
The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.
References
Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:45:17
| Main analysis | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| Crude protein | % DM | 21.0 | 1 | ||||
| Crude fibre | % DM | 15.6 | 1 | ||||
| Ether extract | % DM | 2.6 | 1 | ||||
| Ash | % DM | 4.5 | 1 | ||||
| Gross energy | MJ/kg DM | 19.0 | * | ||||
| Ruminant nutritive values | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| OM digestibility, Ruminant | % | 89.1 | * | ||||
| Pig nutritive values | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| Energy digestibility, growing pig | % | 65.6 | * | ||||
| DE growing pig | MJ/kg DM | 12.4 | * |
The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.
References
Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:45:17
| Main analysis | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| Dry matter | % as fed | 90.8 | 2.5 | 88.5 | 94.7 | 8 | |
| Crude protein | % DM | 27.7 | 5.2 | 18.2 | 37.0 | 9 | |
| Crude fibre | % DM | 7.8 | 1.8 | 4.8 | 9.5 | 6 | |
| NDF | % DM | 19.8 | 7.5 | 14.6 | 28.4 | 3 | |
| ADF | % DM | 7.5 | 6.0 | 9.1 | 2 | ||
| Lignin | % DM | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 1.8 | 3 | |
| Ether extract | % DM | 2.6 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 4.7 | 7 | |
| Ash | % DM | 3.7 | 0.5 | 3.0 | 4.6 | 8 | |
| Starch (polarimetry) | % DM | 51.6 | 1 | ||||
| Total sugars | % DM | 6.6 | 1 | ||||
| Gross energy | MJ/kg DM | 19.2 | * | ||||
| Minerals | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| Calcium | g/kg DM | 1.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 3 | |
| Phosphorus | g/kg DM | 4.3 | 1.2 | 2.9 | 5.1 | 3 | |
| Potassium | g/kg DM | 8.1 | 1 | ||||
| Magnesium | g/kg DM | 1.9 | 1 | ||||
| Amino acids | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| Alanine | % protein | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 2 | ||
| Arginine | % protein | 3.8 | 3.6 | 1.7 | 7.9 | 3 | |
| Aspartic acid | % protein | 1.8 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 2 | ||
| Cystine | % protein | 1.2 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 2 | ||
| Glutamic acid | % protein | 4.4 | 4.2 | 4.5 | 2 | ||
| Glycine | % protein | 4.6 | 1 | ||||
| Histidine | % protein | 1.7 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 3 | |
| Isoleucine | % protein | 2.6 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 4.8 | 3 | |
| Leucine | % protein | 4.7 | 2.5 | 3.1 | 7.6 | 3 | |
| Lysine | % protein | 4.2 | 2.8 | 1.7 | 7.0 | 4 | |
| Methionine | % protein | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 2 | ||
| Phenylalanine | % protein | 2.7 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 4.8 | 3 | |
| Serine | % protein | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 2 | ||
| Threonine | % protein | 4.0 | 1 | ||||
| Tryptophan | % protein | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 2 | ||
| Tyrosine | % protein | 5.1 | 1 | ||||
| Valine | % protein | 2.8 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 5.5 | 3 | |
| Secondary metabolites | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| Tannins (eq. tannic acid) | g/kg DM | 1.6 | 0.0 | 3.3 | 2 | ||
| Ruminant nutritive values | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| OM digestibility, Ruminant | % | 91.5 | * | ||||
| Energy digestibility, ruminants | % | 90.4 | * | ||||
| DE ruminants | MJ/kg DM | 17.4 | * | ||||
| ME ruminants | MJ/kg DM | 13.9 | * | ||||
| Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants | % | 81.0 | 1 | ||||
| Pig nutritive values | Unit | Avg | SD | Min | Max | Nb | |
| Energy digestibility, growing pig | % | 77.8 | * | ||||
| DE growing pig | MJ/kg DM | 14.9 | * | ||||
| MEn growing pig | MJ/kg DM | 14.2 | * | ||||
| NE growing pig | MJ/kg DM | 10.3 | * |
The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.
References
AFZ, 2011; Belewu et al., 2008; Cerighelli et al., 1960; Cirad, 2008; Diaz et al., 2002; French, 1938; Lon-Wo et al., 2002; Ogunji et al., 2003; Oyenuga, 1968; Ravindran et al., 1994
Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:45:17
References
References
Image credits
Image credits
| Picture title | Credits | License |
|---|---|---|
| Velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens) flowers | Scott Zona | CC BY 2.0 |
| Velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens) fruits | Scott Zona | CC BY 2.0 |
| 