Feedipedia
Animal feed resources information system
Feedipedia
Feedipedia

Sunflower meal

Datasheet

Description
Click on the "Nutritional aspects" tab for recommendations for ruminants, pigs, poultry, rabbits, horses, fish and crustaceans
Common names 
  • Sunflower meal, sunflower oil meal, sunflower oilmeal, sunflowerseed meal, sunflower seed meal
  • Sunflower cake, sunflower oil cake, sunflower oilcake, sunflower seed cake, expeller sunflower meal
  • Dehulled sunflower meal, dehulled sunflower cake, decorticated sunflower meal, decorticated sunflower cake
  • Undecorticated sunflower meal, undecorticated sunflower cake, non-dehulled sunflower meal, undehulled sunflower meal, unhulled sunflower meal
Description 

Sunflower meal is the by-product of the extraction of oil from sunflower seeds. In terms of production, it is the 4th most important oil meal after soybean meal, rapeseed meal and cottonseed meal (Oil World, 2011). A wide variety of products are available on the market, from low-quality straw-like meals to high-quality flours. Sunflower meals can be made from whole or decorticated seeds, and can be mechanically and/or solvent-extracted. The quality of sunflower meal depends on the plant characteristics (seed composition, hulls/kernel ratio, dehulling potential, growth and storage conditions) and on the processing (dehulling, mechanical and/or solvent extraction) (Golob et al., 2002; NRC, 1973). While solvent-extracted sunflower meal remains the main type of sunflower meal commercially available, oil-rich sunflower meals obtained by mechanical pressure only have become more popular since the 2000s, with the development of organic farming and on-farm oil production.

Distribution 

Sunflower meal is available worldwide. World production was 13.5 million t in 2010-2011 (Oil World, 2011). The European Union (EU-27) is the main producer and importer: it produced 3.3 million tons and used 5.7 million t in 2009-2010. Other main producers and exporters were Ukraine (2.5 million t), Russia (2.3 million t) and Argentina (1.21 million t). Turkey, Israel and Egypt are the main importers after EU (FAS, 2011).

Processes 

Dehulling

Sunflower seeds from oil types contain about 20-30% hulls, which are often removed before oil extraction. This is because of their deleterious effects on oil presses: they hinder lower oil extraction and reduce the quality of both oil and meal (Kartika, 2005). Reducing 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). 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. It can also be done by abrasion (Carré, 2009). The resulting blend is winnowed to separate the hulls from the kernels. Some sunflower varieties have thinner hulls that are more difficult to remove. In this case, dehulling is not recommended as it may result in oil loss, and increases extraction costs without enhancing oil and sunflower meal quality (Grompone, 2005; Campbell, 1983).

Oil extraction

Once winnowed, the kernels undergo mechanical pressing through screw-presses (expellers), resulting in a "cake" containing 15-20% of oil. This cake can subsequently be extracted with a solvent (usually hexane) to yield more oil. While pressing followed by solvent extraction is the most common industrial process, mechanical extraction is used by producers of specialty oils and smallholder farmers in both developed and developing countries (for example in Zimbabwe; Mandibaya et al., 1999). In the European Union, regulations forbid the use of solvents for the production of feed ingredients used in organic farming (European Commission, 2007), so only mechanically-extracted sunflower meals can be used for organic animal production.

Conditionning

Fresh sunflower meal must be dried for optimal storage. It can be ground, broken into small pieces or pelletized, for easier handling and storage by adding a suitable binder such as molasses or fats under high pressure in an pelletizer or extruder (Grompone, 2005).

Quality

Solvent extraction results in a lower fat content, while dehulling decreases the fibre content, yielding a meal richer in protein. There are fully decorticated meals (high protein, low fibre), partially decorticated meals and non-decorticated meals (low protein, high fibre) with no clear separation between these grades. Like other protein feeds such as fish meal or soybean meal, sunflower meal is usually graded and sold on the basis of its protein content, for example "28", "29", "37", etc. In the USA, protein level and process of manufacture must be mentioned in order to inform users about the quality of the sunflower meal (NCPA, 2008). The colour of sunflower meal ranges from grey to black depending on the degree of dehulling (meals with less hulls are lighter) and on the extraction process (Naidu, 2008).

Though it contains less protein and much more fibre than soybean meal, sunflower meal is a valuable livestock feed, particularly for ruminants and rabbits, and under certain conditions for pigs and poultry.

Nutritional aspects
Nutritional attributes 

Sunflower meal is one of the major protein meals used for livestock feeding, particularly for ruminants. It is generally a valuable and safe product, whose protein, fibre and oil contents are highly variable and driven by variations of the oil extraction process. Its protein content ranges from 23% DM for some non-dehulled, mechanically-extracted meals, to more than 40% for highly decorticated, solvent-extracted meals. However, usual ranges for protein are 29-33% DM for non-dehulled meals and 35-39% DM for dehulled and partially dehulled meals. The fibre content is directly linked to the presence of hulls: crude fibre ranges from 27 to 31% DM for non-dehulled meals and from 20 to 26% for dehulled and partially dehulled sunflower meals. The lignin content is important, in the 9-12% range, even for dehulled meals. Solvent-extracted sunflower meals contain about 2-3% DM of residual oil, but mechanically-extracted meals may contain up to 30% oil depending on the amount of pressing. This oil content gives expeller meals a higher gross energy (22 MJ/kg DM or more vs. 19 MJ/kg DM for solvent-extracted meals), but these meals contain less protein than solvent-extracted ones.

One particularly interesting trait of sunflower meal is the absence of intrinsic antinutritional factors: unlike other oil meals, including those of soybean, rapeseed or cotton, it does not require heating or special attention before being fed. Its amino acid profile is richer in sulfur-containing amino acids, particularly methionine, than other protein sources, but its lysine content is much lower than that of soybean meal (3.5 vs. 6.1% protein). Sunflower meal is considered to be lysine-deficient for several monogastric species (Poncet et al., 2003; Steen, 1989; Villamide et al., 1998; McNab, 2002). Sunflower meal is also a valuable source of calcium, phosphorus and B vitamins (Grompone, 2005).

The high fibre and lignin content of sunflower meal tends to reduce nutrient digestibility, and its energy values are lower than those of soybean meal. It is suitable for ruminants and rabbits, but only for pigs and poultry with low energy requirements (animals at maintenance, laying hens) or specific fibre requirements (sows) (CETIOM, 2003). In other monogastrics, such as broilers or growing pigs, the cost-effectiveness of including sunflower meal depends on the quality of the meal and on the availability and price of better sources of protein and lysine. It must be reiterated that sunflower meal is a highly variable ingredient where protein, fibre and fat cover a much larger range than in many common feeds. When formulating diets with sunflower meal, one should always take into account the actual analytical composition of the batch used, rather than table values. It must be noted that, unfortunately, many trials involving sunflower meal fail to mention the processes involved (dehulling and extraction type).

Potential constraints 

A major benefit of sunflower meal is that it does not have antinutritional factors such as those found in soybean, cottonseed and rapeseed meals. For that reason, it is considered to be a safe feed for all species, its only limitations being its fibre content and amino acid deficiencies. However, residues and contaminations from sunflower cultivation, harvest and post-harvest operations may be of concern.

Copper toxicity

The use of fertilizers containing copper occasionally result in high copper levels in sunflower products. Sheep are more susceptible to chronic copper poisoning than other livestock. In south-eastern Spain, deaths have been reported in lambs that had consumed sunflower meal with moderate Cu content (up to 14 mg/kg), but with high copper:molybdenum ratio (over 6:10), making toxicosis very likely. Sunflower products should be fed to sheep in combination with sources of molybdenum, such as green forage, that may help to prevent excessive accumulation of Cu in the liver (Garcia-Fernandez et al., 1999).

Contaminations during processing

Sunflower meal may be contaminated during harvest and post-harvest operations: risk factors are pesticides residues, hexane residues, dioxin contamination resulting from the utilization of anticaking agents, mycotoxin development due to poor drying before storage and salmonella (FEDIOL, 2010).

Eggshell staining

Chlorogenic acid, a phenolic compound present in sunflower meal, causes eggshell staining when eggs come in contact with sunflower meal dust. Feeding poultry with sunflower meal pellets and frequent egg collection alleviate this problem (Daghir, 2008).

Ruminants 

Sunflower meal has been used to feed ruminants for a long time and was appreciated in the 19th century as an excellent ingredient (Cornevin, 1892). Numerous experiments have since confirmed that, even in its non-dehulled form, sunflower meal can be used without problems as a protein supplement in ruminant diets. Sunflower meal can replace soybean meal (and other oil meals with a higher protein content, such as cottonseed meal or groundnut meal), provided that the diet is properly balanced for protein and fibre. Due to its high variability, users should allow for the precise protein, fibre and oil content of the sunflower meal used in the diet.

Nutritional value

Digestibility

In vivo OM digestibility of sunflower meal varies from 52 to 74% and is negatively correlated to fibre content: dehulled meals tend to be more digestible (about 66%) than non-dehulled meals (61%) (Economides, 1998; Irshaid et al., 2003; Molina Alcaide et al., 2003; Woods et al., 2003a; Arroyo et al., 2005; Beran et al., 2005; Mondal et al., 2008; Marcondes et al., 2009; Goes et al., 2010). ME values range from 8.6 to 11 MJ/kg DM.

Protein value

Sunflower meal protein is more degradable than that of other oil meals (Poncet et al., 2003). Values are usually in the 70-80% range though lower values as well as values over 90% have been reported (Sauvant et al., 2004; Domingues et al., 2010; Economides, 1998; Gonzalez et al., 1999; Molina Alcaide et al., 2003; Pop et al., 2006). In animals fed sunflower meal, rumen ammonia rapidly increases within 4 hours after feeding, which facilitates microbial synthesis and OM digestion (Shayo et al., 1997a). Heat treatment or toasting increases the proportion of rumen undegradable protein (Anderson, 2002). A treatment combining acid and heat reduced protein degradability from 80% to 34-38% (Arroyo et al., 2005). Fibrolytic enzymes may be used in the ration to break down sunflower fibres, releasing more energy and protein (Titi, 2003).

Dairy and beef cows

Sunflower meal can be the sole source of supplementary protein in diets for dairy cows (Blair, 2011). Milk production was similar when partially dehulled (Schingoethe et al., 1977) or fully dehulled sunflower meal (Parks et al., 1981) replaced soybean meal in dairy cow diets (Blair, 2011). In the USA, sunflower meal has been widely used in beef cow supplementation programs (Anderson, 2002). The following table presents examples of utilization of sunflower meal in dairy diets around the world:

Country Animals Experiment Inclusion rate Results Reference
United States Lactating Holstein cows Replaced soybean meal (partially dehulled) 31% No effect on milk yield and composition Schingoethe et al., 1977
United Kingdom Lactating Friesian cows Compared to soybean meal and rapeseed meal (with maize silage). Sunflower meal supplemented with fish meal and meat and bone meal 76% No effect on milk yield and composition Vincent et al., 1990
France High yielding dairy cows Replaced rapeseed meal 15% No effect on milk yield (31.9 kg) and composition Brunschwig et al., 2002
Tanzania Crossbred zebu cows Sunflower meal added to maize bran,
4 kg/d
31% Increased milk yield (8.1 vs. 6.6 l/d),
no effect on milk composition
Mlay et al., 2005
Tanzania Mpwapwa cows Sunflower added to maize bran, 2 kg/d 50% Increased milk yield (5.5 kg/d vs. 4.6 kg/d) Shayo et al., 1997b
Zimbabwe Jersey,
Red Dane, crossbred cows
Farm-made concentrate with maize and expeller sunflower cake, 4.5 kg/d + pasture + urea-treated maize stover 39% No effect on maize stover DMI, milk yield (5.8-6.0 kg/d) and milk protein (3.5-3.7%) but lower milk fat content (4.0 vs. 4.3%) which may be due to lower rumen acetic and butyric acids Ngongoni et al., 2007
India Crossbred cows Replaced groundnut and mustard meal in concentrate (3.6-3.8 kg/d) + oat forage 19-38% No effect on forage DMI (120 g/kg W0.75 ), DM digestibility (64-66%), milk yield (7.1-7.5 kg/d), milk fat (4.2-4.7%), milk protein (3.4-3.8%) Sharma et al., 2003
India Crossbred cows Replaced 50 or 75% cottonseed meal   Lower milk yield at 75% replacement (9.12 kg/d) but no effect at 50% (9.77 kg/d) Bade et al., 2008
Pakistan Lactating crossbred cows Replaced cottonseed meal concentrate (1kg/2kg of milk) 18-40% No effect on milk yield (9.15 vs. 9.59 kg/d) and milk fat (4.5%) but lower weight gain Jabbar et al., 2008

Sunflower meal is also used in the diet of dairy buffaloes:

Country Animals Experiment Inclusion rate Results Reference
India Dairy buffaloes Replaced groundnut and mustard meal in concentrate (3.6-3.8 kg/d) + oat forage 19-38% No effect on DMI, DM and OM digestibility, milk yield (5.4-5.6 kg/d), milk fat (7%) and milk protein (3.7%) Sharma et al., 2003
Pakistan Lactating
Nilli-Ravi buffaloes
Replaced 38% cottonseed meal 15% Increased milk yield (8.2 vs. 7.4 kg/d) and fat content (6.32 vs. 6.20%) Jabbar et al., 2009
Ibid. Ibid. Replaced 100% cottonseed meal 28% Decreased milk yield (7.4 vs. 7.8 kg/d) and increased fat content (6.31 vs. 6.20%) Ibid.

Growing cattle

Sunflower meal can be used as the sole source of protein in beef rations. In trials comparing sunflower meal with other protein sources, a similar performance was commonly observed in animals receiving isonitrogenous diets from different sources (Richardson et al., 1981; Anderson, 2002). The following table presents examples of utilization of sunflower meal in diets for growing cattle from around the world:

Country Animals Experiment Inclusion rate Results Reference
Australia Weaned beef calves 3 kg sunflower meal + cereal grains + hay   1200 g/d over 70 d Dove et al., 2008
Zimbabwe Heifer calves, 26 d Farm-grown calf meal, TMR 39% No effect on DMI and daily weight gain Mandibaya et al., 1999
Pakistan Buffalo calves, 10-11 m, 100 kg Replaced up to 100% cottonseed meal Up to 36% Decreased DMI, diet digestibility and ADG (990 to 330 g/d), possibly due to increase in dietary lignin (3.5 to 6.4% DM) Yunus et al., 2004
Pakistan Male calves, 9-10 m,
70-90 kg
Replaced up to 100% cottonseed meal;
2.5 kg forage
Up to 28% No effect on DMI (5.5 kg) and ADG (720 g/d) Jabbar et al., 2006
Italy Steers,
700 kg
Supplemented diet based on hay, straw and fam-mixed compound feed   No effect on daily weight gain (1200-1300 g/d) and carcass parameters Mattii et al., 2009
Texas, USA Steers,
270 kg
Diet based on hay and urea Up to 20% No effect on DM, OM and protein digestibility Richardson et al., 1981
Ibid. Steers,
296 kg
Replaced cottonseed meal in TMR 10.8% protein 5.5-11% No effect on diet digestibility and N retention Ibid.
Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. but TMR 13% protein 22% Higher DM and protein digestibility Ibid.
Brazil Steers, 20 m, 370 kg 55-60% maize silage + sunflower meal + energy source (maize grain, soybean hulls, maize germ meal) 20-25% No effect on DM digestibility, carcass quality and ADG (1110-1170 g/d) for all energy sources; higher microbial efficiency with soybean hulls or maize germ meal Mendes et al., 2005a; Mendes et al., 2005b; Mendes et al., 2006
Brazil Bulls, 380 kg Replaced 0 to 100% cottonseed cake in diet based on sugarcane silage Up to 41% diet DMI decreased at 75% and 100% (112-107 g/kg W0.75 vs. 119-125 g/kg 0.75). No effect on rumen pH and NH4 Domingues et al., 2010
Brazil Growing dairy cattle, 285 kg Replaced soybean meal (with maize silage) Up to 45% No effect on diet digestibility and silage DMI, but ADG tended to increase (1055-1211 g/d) Garcia et al., 2004; Garcia et al., 2006

Sheep

Dairy ewes

Sunflower meal can replace other protein sources in the diets of dairy ewes. Expeller sunflower cake (16% oil) tend to increase milk concentration of the c9,t11-CLA isomer and of unsaturated fatty acids (Amores et al., 2010). The following table summarises findings in dairy ewes fed sunflower meal:

Country Animals Experiment Inclusion rate Results Reference
Spain Latxa,
60-65 kg
Replaced 15% soybean meal (with hay and pasture)   No effect on milk yield (1.2 kg/d) and milk fat content (6.1%) Mandaluniz et al., 2010
Cyprus Chios,
61-63 kg
Replaced 100% soybean meal 20% No effect on milk yield (1.5 kg/d) and milk fat content (5.7%) Economides, 1998
Jordan Awassi,
55-59 kg
Replaced up to 100% soybean meal in TMR 20-38% Lower milk yield (0.26 vs. 0.31 kg/d) but same mik fat content (6.9-7.0%) Irshaid et al., 2003
India Ewes, 29 kg Replaced groundnut meal as sole concentrate (with straw)   No effect on DMI (44-46 g/kg W0.75) and digestibility of DM (55-57%), OM (58-60%) and protein (51%) Dutta et al., 2002
Fattening lambs

Sunflower meal was also found to promote better wool growth than cottonseed meal due its higher content in sulfur-containing amino acids (Richardson et al., 1981). The table summarises trials which have tested successfully the inclusion of sunflower meal in fattening lamb diets as a substitute for soybean meal, cottonseed meal or groundnut meal:

Country Animals Experiment Inclusion rate Results Reference
Texas, USA 27 kg Replaced cottonseed meal in sorghum-based diet (12% protein) 5.5-22% No effect on ADG (0.230-0.260 g/d) and wool growth (6.2-6.9 g/cm²) Richardson et al., 1981
Ibid. Ibid. Replaced cottonseed meal in sorghum-based diet (8% protein) 5% No effect on ADG but higher wool growth (6.95 vs. 5.90 g/cm²) Ibid.
Brazil 14 kg Replaced 50 or 100% soybean meal in lambs fed low quality forage   ADG decreased from 140 g/d to 88-101 g/d, carcass characteristics linked to body weight decrease, but proportions (meat, fat) stayed the same Louvandini et al., 2007
Portugal 20 kg, 3 m Fed 90% maize grain and rye-grass pasture 10% ADG 167 g/d Santos-Silva et al., 2003
Sudan 21.4 kg Compared to groundnut, sesame and cottonseed cake in TMR (14.5% protein) 30% No effect on ADG (183 g/d) and DMI (1.18 kg/d). Some carcass composition parameters lower than with groundnut cake or sesame cake Suliman et al., 2007
Jordan Awassi,
40-43 kg
Replaced 50 or 100% soybean meal 17-35% No effect on ADG and diet digestibility Irshaid et al., 2003
India 9-10 m,
27.6 kg
Replaced groundnut meal in TMR, 115 d ad libitum 13% No effect on DMI (1-1.2 kg), digestibility (DM 56-59%, OM 59-62%, protein 59-62%), ADG (75-83 g/d) and carcass traits Nagalakshmi et al., 2011
Pakistan 18.5 kg,
9-12 m
Replaced up to 100% cottonseed meal in TMR (17% protein), ad libitum 12-36% No effect on weight gain (6-6.8 kg), higher DMI: 3.7 vs. 2.7 kg/d Yagoub et al., 2009

Goats

There is limited information on the use of sunflower meal in goats, but it is generally possible to replace some of the main diet ingredients with sunflower meal without degrading performance, as summarized in the table below:

Country Animals Experiment Inclusion rate Results Reference
Spain Dairy goats Replaced soybean meal in TMR, 22 weeks 9% No effect on milk yield, milk composition Fernandez et al., 2004
Spain Dairy goats,
1 kg milk/d,
43 kg
Comparison with cottonseed, faba beans or corn gluten feed 20% Higher milk production but lower milk protein Sanz Sampelayo et al., 1999
Spain Dairy goats, 38 kg Replaced soybean meal in TMR, 30 days 9% No effect on milk yield, milk composition, higher DMI Fernandez et al., 2003
Cyprus Dairy goats,
2 kg milk/d
Replaced part of soybean meal
and 50% straw
20% No effect on milk yield, milk composition Economides, 1998
Jordan Growing kids Replaced soybean meal in TMR (15% protein) 20% No effect on DMI and ADG Titi, 2003
India Male goats, 25 kg Replaced groundnut meal 20% No effect on DMI, DM and OM digestibility but lower N digestibility Dutta et al., 2002

 

Pigs 

In pig diets, the use of sunflower meal is limited by its high level of fibre and its deficiency in several amino acids including lysine, threonine and tryptophan. Sunflower meal has a much lower energy value than soybean meal: the net energy value for growing pigs of a dehulled, high-protein sunflower meal is about 64% of that of low-protein soybean meal (6 vs. 9.3 MJ/kg DM respectively). The total energy range for sunflower meal is very wide: in a experiment comparing various levels of dehulling, NE estimates went from 5.4 to 7.9 MJ/kg DM for normal processes, and experimental products went from 3.5 to 9.0 MJ/k DM (Perez et al., 1986).

Growing pigs

Opinions differ on whether sunflower meal should be used or not for growing pigs. Some authors state that it should be completely avoided for all classes of growing pigs (CETIOM, 2003). Others recommend that while starter pigs should not receive sunflower meal, it can be fed up to 25-33% of the protein source to older animals (Blair, 2007; Chiba, 2001). Sunflower meal, unless it is of exceptional quality, is certainly not very suitable for growing animals with high energy and protein requirements. Sunflower meal used as soybean meal replacer in piglets and growing pigs diet resulted in lower feed intake, lower growth performance and lower carcass quality when the level of sunflower meal in the diet was above 10-11% (Lipinski et al., 2002; Shelton et al., 2001; Li DeFa et al., 2000; Cuca et al., 1974). Sunflower meal also resulted in lower feed efficiency than soybean meal (Shelton et al., 2001). Different studies showed that this problem could be alleviated, but not totally eliminated, by lysine and oil supplementation (Shelton et al., 2001; Cortamira et al., 2000; Wetscherek et al., 1993; Aherne et al., 1985), even when high-quality sunflower meal (twice-decorticated) was used (Cortamira et al., 2000). Sunflower meal used as the only protein source and supplemented with lysine yielded inconsistent growth performance, sometimes resulting in higher growth rate, sometimes in similar or lower ones (Akdag et al., 2008; Shelton et al., 2001; Wahlstrom, 1985). However, the utilization of sunflower meal for growing pigs will depend on its cost-effectiveness and local conditions. For example, in Turkey, sunflower meal supplemented with lysine gave similar results to soybean meal and successfully replaced kitchen wastes in piglet diets, resulting in better animal performance and feed efficiency (Akdag et al., 2008).

Finishing pigs and sows

Sunflower meal can be used at higher rates in diets for finishing and adult pigs (Blair, 2007; Chiba, 2001). In finishing pigs, inclusion rates up to 16-21% did not hamper growth performance and carcass quality (Carellos et al., 2005; Silva et al., 2002). Male animals had better growth performance than females when offered sunflower meal (Silva et al., 2002). However, higher inclusion levels may also result in lower performance and meat quality (soft backfat with higher linoleic acids) (Blair, 2007).

Sows and adult boars have lower lysine requirements and sunflower meal can be used as the sole protein source, provided that the total diet provides the required amount of digestible lysine. Sunflower meal did not impair reproductive performance of sows (Kleisiari, 2005). It was recommended for feeding to lactating sows provided that they were given a protein source rich in lysine (Blair, 2007).

Poultry 

In poultry feeding, sunflower meal is considered as a protein-rich but lysine-deficient and high-fibre ingredient, whose fibre fraction is mainly composed of insoluble sugars, resulting in low ME values that depend on the actual fibre content (Villamide et al., 1998). As a consequence, sunflower meal is a more suitable ingredient for laying hens than for birds with higher protein and energy requirements, such as broilers and turkeys (CETIOM, 2003). It may also be cost-effective to use sunflower meal for poultry diets in countries where soybean meal is not available or too expensive (Senkoylu et al., 1999).

Dehulled sunflower meals have higher ME values than non-dehulled meals, as they contain more protein and less fibre. Mechanically-extracted sunflower meal has a higher ME value due to its larger oil content, but it is less valuable as a protein source due to its lower protein. Processing may have complex effects, positive and negative, on the nutritional value of sunflower meal (San Juan et al., 2000; Zhang et al., 1994). While lysine content is low, its digestibility is good. The addition of crystalline lysine may be economically profitable, but eventually depends on the price of lysine at any given time. The use of exogenous enzymes for alleviating the negative effects of sunflower fibre has been intensively tested but without consistent results (Attia et al., 2003; Mushtaq et al., 2006).

Poultry feed formulators limit the use of high-fibre ingredients by adding the maximum level of crude fibre as a constraint. When this constraint is removed and when adequate levels of lysine and other amino acids are supplied in broiler diets, inclusion rates of sunflower meal can reach up to 30% without detrimental effects on performance (Mushtaq et al., 2009; Rao et al., 2006; Senkoylu et al., 2006). Diets containing large amounts of sunflower meal, including high-oil meal, tend to be bulky, resulting in lower feed consumption. Reducing bulkiness by pelleting increases feed intake and performance (gain and feed conversion ratio) (Senkoylu et al., 2006).

In layer diets, it is possible to introduce up to 30% sunflower meal without affecting performance (Deaton et al., 1979). In other bird species, pelleting may also improve feed efficiency by decreasing the bulkiness of sunflower meal-based diets, for example in diets for waterfowl (Vetesi et al., 1998). In turkey diets, the inclusion rate of sunflower meal seems to be more limited (less than 14%), as turkeys have higher requirements for protein and amino acids, and because sunflower meal may induce undesirable effects (decrease in the mass of small intestine and caecal tissues, and inhibition of the fermentation processes in the caeca) (Juskiewicz et al., 2010).

Rabbits 

In rabbit feeding, sunflower meal is a dual purpose raw material, being both a source of (more or less) balanced protein and a source of lignin-rich fibre. It is an ingredient suitable for rabbit feeding without technical restriction provided that protein level, protein quality and fibre composition are taken into account in diet formulation. Sunflower meal only supplies about 70% of the lysine requirements for growing and breeding rabbits, but exceeds the requirements for sulfur-containing amino acids, threonine and tryptophan (Lebas, 2004). Due to its lysine deficiency, sunflower meal is frequently used together with soybean meal or legume grains (Carabaño et al., 1992). Lignin content is very high, even in dehulled sunflower meal, and for that reason sunflower meal can be considered as a "safety" ingredient for maintaining digestive health in growing rabbits (Gidenne et al., 2010).

Sunflower was used in 33 out of 58 experimental diets described in the papers published at the 9th World Rabbit Congress in 2008, with an average inclusion rate of 12% (Lebas et al., 2009). However, many feeding studies in growing rabbits mention much higher acceptable inclusion rates, usually 20-25% (Martina, 1976; Aduku et al., 1988; Bhatt et al., 1999; Ismail et al., 1999; Kpodekon et al., 2009). In some experiments sunflower meal was incorporated at 38% or even 45% of the diet (Siddaramanna et al., 2009; Masoero et al., 1990). Because it is considered as a safe ingredient, sunflower meal is often included at 12-20% in the control diet in studies that test alternative ingredients or investigate the effects of fibre in rabbit nutrition (Lebas et al., 1977; Villena et al., 2008; Volek et al., 2008; Molette et al., 2009). Studies on rabbit reproduction often include sunflower meal at 12-16% in the control diet (Lebas, 1978; Lebas et al., 1996; de Blas et al., 1995; Alvarez et al., 2007).

Fish 

Sunflower meal is a valuable source of protein for fish species, particularly in its dehulled form. It is often used to replace soybean meal since it is free of trypsin inhibitors and has a higher vitamin content than soybean meal (Hertrampf et al., 2000).

Tilapia

Sunflower meal can be a cost-effective alternative to fish meal in tilapia, as shown by several experiments. Sunflower meal replaced 10 to 25% fish meal in the diets of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) (hulled meal; El-Saidy et al., 2002), and redbreast tilapia fingerlings (Tilapia rendalli) (Olvera-Novoa et al., 2002). In the latter study, the most cost-effective diet included 20% sunflower meal (Olvera-Novoa et al., 2002). L-methionine and lysine supplementation have been suggested to obtain optimal results (El-Saidy et al., 2002). A blend of sunflower meal, cottonseed meal, linseed meal and soybean meal (1:1:1:1) totally replaced fish meal and gave a better economic return without detrimental effect on animal performance and feed efficiency (El-Saidy et al., 2003). It was also shown that decorticated sunflower meal could replace a high proportion of fish meal provided that tilapia received adequate energy supplementation (Maina et al., 2002). Feeding tilapia sunflower meal increased the content in linoleic acid (18:2 ω6) in the fish, but resulted in low levels of desirable eicosapentaenoic acid (20:5 ω3) and docosahexaenoic acid (22:6 ω3) (Maina et al., 2003).

Indian Carp (Cirrhinus mrigala)

In a comparison between sunflower meal, maize gluten meal and wheat bran in diets for Indian carp fingerlings fed each ingredient at 4% (wet fish weight twice a day), sunflower meal gave the highest average body weight (Shabir et al., 2003).

Salmonids

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

There have been many studies aiming at determining the possible replacement of fish meal or soybean meal in rainbow trout diets. Early trials found that increasing sunflower meal from 0% to 36.5% resulted in lower DM intake and lower performance (Tacon et al., 1984 cited by Hertrampf et al., 2000). However, later works reported inclusion rates up to 40% without deleterious effects on performance (growth, feed intake, feed efficiency and survival) (Gill et al., 2006).

Salmon (Salmo salar L.)

An experimental high-protein (41% DM) and extruded sunflower meal replaced about 33% of the protein provided by fish meal in the diet of post-smolt salmons, without any adverse effects on their performance (Gill et al., 2006).

European eel (Anguilla anguilla)

When sunflower meal replaced up to 50% fish meal in eel diets it decreased intake and growth performance, unless supplemented with essential amino acids (Higuera et al., 1999; Garcia Gallego et al., 1998).

Gilt-head bream (Sparus aurata)

Juveniles of gilt-head bream were fed up to 36% undecorticated sunflower meal. However, animal performance and feed efficiency were higher at 10-12% sunflower meal inclusion and the best economic return was obtained at 14% (Sanchez Lozano et al., 2007).

Other species 

Abalone (Haliotis midae)

Sunflower meal could be included at 20-30% of the diet for abalones. However, its apparent protein digestibility was lower than that of soybean meal (92 vs. 96%) (Sales et al., 2002; Sales et al., 2003). The inclusion of 30% sunflower meal had no effect on growth performance (Shipton et al., 2001).

Nutritional tables

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

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 89.0 1.4 85.1 94.3 14806  
Crude protein % DM 32.4 3.1 23.9 44.7 14755  
Crude fibre % DM 27.9 3.3 16.1 37.4 14519  
NDF % DM 45.0 4.4 31.6 54.3 647 *
ADF % DM 32.0 3.6 21.0 39.4 644 *
Lignin % DM 10.7 1.6 6.1 13.6 540 *
Ether extract % DM 2.2 0.9 0.4 5.6 9688  
Ash % DM 7.1 0.7 5.5 9.4 5882  
Total sugars % DM 6.1 0.8 4.3 7.7 166  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 19.4 0.3 18.7 20.2 75 *
               
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 4.4 0.7 3.0 6.6 1017  
Phosphorus g/kg DM 11.6 1.7 8.6 16.5 1143  
Potassium g/kg DM 16.9 1.4 13.6 19.1 35  
Sodium g/kg DM 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 154  
Magnesium g/kg DM 5.6 0.5 4.7 6.4 27  
Manganese mg/kg DM 38 8 25 56 24  
Zinc mg/kg DM 96 9 81 114 24  
Copper mg/kg DM 32 5 25 44 23  
Iron mg/kg DM 271 52 207 361 8  
               
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Alanine % protein 4.3 0.3 3.9 5.1 54  
Arginine % protein 8.1 0.5 7.2 9.1 54  
Aspartic acid % protein 8.8 0.4 8.0 9.7 56  
Cystine % protein 1.7 0.2 1.4 2.1 68  
Glutamic acid % protein 18.9 1.4 17.0 22.4 56  
Glycine % protein 5.6 0.3 5.2 6.5 60  
Histidine % protein 2.4 0.2 2.1 3.0 52  
Isoleucine % protein 4.1 0.2 3.6 4.6 67  
Leucine % protein 6.2 0.3 5.6 7.0 67  
Lysine % protein 3.5 0.2 3.1 4.0 86  
Methionine % protein 2.3 0.2 1.9 2.5 70  
Phenylalanine % protein 4.4 0.2 3.9 4.9 64  
Proline % protein 4.2 0.4 3.5 4.9 26  
Serine % protein 4.2 0.2 3.7 4.6 56  
Threonine % protein 3.6 0.2 3.3 4.0 67  
Tryptophan % protein 1.3 0.0 1.2 1.3 19  
Tyrosine % protein 2.3 0.3 1.7 2.8 40  
Valine % protein 4.9 0.3 4.3 5.6 67  
               
Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Tannins (eq. tannic acid) g/kg DM 16.0 4.5 11.1 20.6 5  
Tannins, condensed (eq. catechin) g/kg DM 3.9       1  
               
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, ruminants % 62.1 7.0 52.4 74.2 17 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 61.1 7.6 52.4 74.1 14 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 11.8 1.3 10.4 14.3 8 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 9.1 1.0 8.6 11.0 6 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 84.5 3.6 78.2 88.9 16  
a (N) % 27.3 10.0 13.7 39.5 9  
b (N) % 60.3 17.4 34.6 79.0 11  
c (N) h-1 0.148 0.080 0.059 0.273 10  
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 80 9 70 92 8  
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 75 7 62 83 20  
               
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 53.4 12.7 41.1 89.2 18 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 10.3 2.1 8.1 15.1 17 *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 9.4 1.1 9.0 11.2 3 *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 5.3         *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 78.4 4.3 70.0 88.1 18  
               
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 8.6 1.2 6.3 9.9 15  
               
Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, rabbit % 59.2 11.2 51.9 76.0 4 *
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 11.5 1.7 10.0 14.4 5  
MEn rabbit MJ/kg DM 10.1         *
Nitrogen digestibility, rabbit % 81.0 3.8 75.5 84.0 4  

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

References

ADAS, 1987; ADAS, 1988; AFZ, 2011; Anderson et al., 1991; Arroyo et al., 2005; Aufrère et al., 1991; Bach Knudsen, 1997; Batterham et al., 1981; Beran et al., 2005; Bourdon et al., 1979; Calabro et al., 2000; Carré et al., 1986; Chaudhry et al., 1993; Cilliers et al., 1998; CIRAD, 1991; CIRAD, 1994; CIRAD, 2008; De Boever et al., 1988; De Boever et al., 1994; De Vuyst et al., 1963; Devegodwa et al., 1986; Dewar, 1967; Djouvinov et al., 1998; Economides, 1998; Erasmus et al., 1994; Fekete et al., 1986; Fernandez Carmona et al., 1996; Freer et al., 1984; Goes et al., 2010; Green et al., 1987; Green et al., 1989; Guillaume, 1978; Hadjipanayiotou et al., 2003; Irshaid et al., 2003; Jongbloed et al., 1990; Jorgensen et al., 1984; Kamalak et al., 2005; Karunajeewa et al., 1989; Knabe et al., 1989; Lekule et al., 1990; Lessire, 1990; Lund et al., 2008; Madsen et al., 1984; Maertens et al., 1985; Maertens et al., 2001; Mahabile et al., 2000; Marcondes et al., 2009; Mariscal Landin, 1992; Masoero et al., 1994; Maupetit et al., 1992; Mlay et al., 2006; Molina Alcaide et al., 2003; Moloney et al., 1998; Mondal et al., 2008; Nadeem et al., 2005; Nengas et al., 1995; Noblet et al., 1989; Noblet, 2001; Patterson et al., 1999; Perez et al., 1984; Perez et al., 1986; Pozy et al., 1996; Rao et al., 2000; San Juan et al., 1993; Sanz et al., 1994; Sauvant et al., 1985; Schingoethe et al., 1977; Skiba et al., 2000; Susmel et al., 1989; Swanek et al., 2001; Tamminga et al., 1990; Tiwari et al., 2006; Vérité et al., 1990; Walker, 1975; Weisbjerg et al., 1996; Whitehead et al., 1982; Wiseman et al., 1992; Woods et al., 1999; Woods et al., 2003

Last updated on 13/02/2014 10:45:00

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 89.8 1.3 86.9 93.3 1911
Crude protein % DM 37.7 2.4 32.4 43.6 1928
Crude fibre % DM 22.8 2.6 17.0 29.3 1866
NDF % DM 38.7 3.6 30.2 43.8 73 *
ADF % DM 26.6 3.0 20.3 29.5 72 *
Lignin % DM 8.6 1.2 6.0 10.0 92 *
Ether extract % DM 1.8 0.6 0.5 4.1 1649
Ash % DM 7.7 0.6 6.3 9.1 823
Total sugars % DM 5.9 1.5 3.8 8.5 17
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 19.3 0.3 19.1 20.3 25 *
 
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 4.6 0.7 3.3 6.4 277
Phosphorus g/kg DM 13.0 1.7 9.8 16.6 295
Potassium g/kg DM 17.7 0.8 16.7 19.1 16
Sodium g/kg DM 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 16
Magnesium g/kg DM 5.9 0.6 5.1 7.2 17
Manganese mg/kg DM 42 11 33 64 8
Zinc mg/kg DM 95 23 58 116 8
Copper mg/kg DM 51 42 9 126 8
Iron mg/kg DM 253 43 207 300 5
 
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Alanine % protein 4.3 0.3 3.8 4.9 17
Arginine % protein 8.5 0.6 7.6 10.1 19
Aspartic acid % protein 8.7 0.6 8.0 9.6 20
Cystine % protein 1.7 0.2 1.4 2.1 29
Glutamic acid % protein 18.8 1.9 17.0 23.9 19
Glycine % protein 5.8 0.5 5.2 6.5 20
Histidine % protein 2.5 0.3 2.1 3.0 17
Isoleucine % protein 4.1 0.2 3.7 4.6 22
Leucine % protein 6.2 0.4 5.5 7.0 22
Lysine % protein 3.5 0.2 3.1 4.0 35
Methionine % protein 2.3 0.2 1.9 2.5 28
Phenylalanine % protein 4.4 0.3 3.9 4.8 21
Proline % protein 4.1 0.5 3.3 4.7 15
Serine % protein 4.1 0.2 3.7 4.5 17
Threonine % protein 3.6 0.2 3.3 4.0 23
Tryptophan % protein 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.3 4
Tyrosine % protein 2.4 0.3 1.7 2.7 17
Valine % protein 4.9 0.4 4.2 5.4 22
 
Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Tannins (eq. tannic acid) g/kg DM 14.0 4.9 11.1 19.6 3
 
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, ruminants % 66.4 4.4 64.0 74.2 5 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 65.6 4.8 63.4 74.1 5 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 12.7 12.1 13.9 2 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 9.6 8.6 10.4 2 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 87.7 1.0 86.4 88.9 5
a (N) % 38.2 1
b (N) % 61.8 1
c (N) h-1 0.025 1
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 79 4 74 82 3
 
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 60.1 7.6 53.3 74.8 8 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 11.6 1.3 10.5 14.3 8 *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 10.6 *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 6.0 *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 81.2 3.2 77.2 88.1 9
 
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 8.8 1.4 5.8 10.9 19
 
Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, rabbit % 74.4 *
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 14.4 1

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

References

ADAS, 1987; ADAS, 1988; AFZ, 2011; Aufrère et al., 1991; Bach Knudsen, 1997; Batterham et al., 1981; De Boever et al., 1994; Erasmus et al., 1994; Freer et al., 1984; Green et al., 1989; Guillaume, 1978; Knabe et al., 1989; Lekule et al., 1990; Lessire, 1990; Mariscal Landin, 1992; Masoero et al., 1994; Mondal et al., 2008; Perez et al., 1986; San Juan et al., 1993; Sanz et al., 1994; Schingoethe et al., 1977; Wiseman et al., 1992

Last updated on 13/02/2014 10:51:41

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 88.9 1.3 85.5 93.7 8052  
Crude protein % DM 31.3 1.9 24.4 36.7 8045  
Crude fibre % DM 29.1 2.2 22.6 37.2 7925  
NDF % DM 46.4 3.1 40.3 53.2 188 *
ADF % DM 33.2 2.4 27.9 38.9 189 *
Lignin % DM 11.2 1.1 8.8 13.5 222 *
Ether extract % DM 2.3 0.8 0.6 5.3 5279  
Ash % DM 7.0 0.6 5.6 8.9 3054  
Total sugars % DM 5.9 0.7 4.4 7.5 97  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 19.4 0.2 19.1 20.2 17 *
               
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 4.3 0.6 3.2 6.2 582  
Phosphorus g/kg DM 11.1 1.3 8.7 14.5 628  
Potassium g/kg DM 16.0 1.8 12.5 18.8 9  
Sodium g/kg DM 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 85  
Magnesium g/kg DM 5.3 1.0 3.0 6.4 9  
Manganese mg/kg DM 43 7 35 53 7  
Zinc mg/kg DM 92 4 88 97 7  
Copper mg/kg DM 30 3 25 33 8  
Iron mg/kg DM 274   248 299 2  
               
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Alanine % protein 4.3 0.4 3.9 5.1 17  
Arginine % protein 8.0 0.7 7.1 9.8 19  
Aspartic acid % protein 8.9 0.6 8.2 10.5 18  
Cystine % protein 1.7 0.1 1.4 1.9 17  
Glutamic acid % protein 19.2 1.6 16.6 22.6 18  
Glycine % protein 5.7 0.3 5.0 6.5 18  
Histidine % protein 2.5 0.3 2.0 3.4 19  
Isoleucine % protein 4.2 0.2 3.8 4.5 18  
Leucine % protein 6.2 0.3 5.9 7.1 18  
Lysine % protein 3.6 0.2 3.3 3.9 21  
Methionine % protein 2.3 0.1 2.1 2.5 17  
Phenylalanine % protein 4.4 0.2 4.1 5.0 18  
Proline % protein 4.2 0.4 3.7 4.9 5  
Serine % protein 4.3 0.2 3.9 5.0 18  
Threonine % protein 3.7 0.2 3.3 4.1 19  
Tryptophan % protein 1.2 0.1 1.2 1.3 8  
Tyrosine % protein 2.3 0.5 1.8 3.3 15  
Valine % protein 5.0 0.4 4.5 5.9 18  
               
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, ruminants % 61.2 6.8 54.4 72.5 5 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 60.1 7.2 53.2 72.8 5 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 11.7 1.1 11.7 14.3 4 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 8.9 1.0 8.6 11.0 4 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 85.8 2.2 82.3 88.3 5  
a (N) % 26.6   13.7 39.5 2  
b (N) % 35.6 1.0 34.6 36.6 3  
c (N) h-1 0.172 0.089 0.104 0.273 3  
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 91   91 92 2  
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 75 21 44 90 4  
               
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 51.9 5.2 41.1 56.5 7 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 10.1 1.1 8.1 11.3 7 *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 9.2   9.0 10.5 2 *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 5.1         *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 73.3 4.3 66.6 79.3 7  
               
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 6.2   6.2 6.3 2  
               
Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, rabbit % 56.2         *
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 10.9   10.3 11.5 2  
MEn rabbit MJ/kg DM 9.6         *
Nitrogen digestibility, rabbit % 81.6       1  

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

References

ADAS, 1987; ADAS, 1988; AFZ, 2011; Aufrère et al., 1991; Bach Knudsen, 1997; Beran et al., 2005; Carré et al., 1986; CIRAD, 2008; De Boever et al., 1988; De Boever et al., 1994; Fernandez Carmona et al., 1996; Goes et al., 2010; Green et al., 1987; Green et al., 1989; Karunajeewa et al., 1989; Lekule et al., 1990; Marcondes et al., 2009; Nengas et al., 1995; Noblet et al., 1989; Noblet, 2001; Perez et al., 1986; San Juan et al., 1993; Walker, 1975; Wiseman et al., 1992

Last updated on 13/02/2014 10:58:26

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 91.8 1.5 88.9 94.9 179  
Crude protein % DM 27.9 3.6 22.7 37.5 186  
Crude fibre % DM 26.2 3.7 17.9 34.6 176  
NDF % DM 42.9 4.3 32.2 45.3 6 *
ADF % DM 30.2 4.8 23.1 37.2 6 *
Lignin % DM 10.0 1.8 6.6 12.2 7 *
Ether extract % DM 13.8 3.9 7.7 23.1 97  
Ash % DM 5.7 0.7 4.5 7.2 126  
Total sugars % DM 4.4 0.9 3.4 7.6 22  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 21.8 0.6 20.1 22.0 8 *
               
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 3.9 1.5 1.8 7.8 16  
Phosphorus g/kg DM 9.2 1.8 5.6 12.5 20  
Potassium g/kg DM 11.2 1.4 10.2 12.8 3  
Sodium g/kg DM 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 4  
Magnesium g/kg DM 3.6 0.8 2.8 4.8 5  
Zinc mg/kg DM 77   64 90 2  
Copper mg/kg DM 26   24 27 2  
Iron mg/kg DM 422       1  
               
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Alanine % protein 4.4       1  
Aspartic acid % protein 7.8       1  
Cystine % protein 1.5       1  
Glutamic acid % protein 15.6       1  
Glycine % protein 4.7       1  
Isoleucine % protein 3.8       1  
Leucine % protein 6.0       1  
Lysine % protein 3.3   3.1 3.4 2  
Methionine % protein 2.3       1  
Phenylalanine % protein 4.3       1  
Serine % protein 3.8       1  
Threonine % protein 3.3       1  
Valine % protein 4.8       1  
               
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, ruminants % 63.6         *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 64.1         *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 14.0         *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 10.9         *
ME ruminants (gas production) MJ/kg DM 4.1       1  
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 75.0       1  
a (N) % 91.1   89.5 92.8 2  
b (N) % 5.3   4.0 6.6 2  
c (N) h-1 0.162   0.156 0.167 2  
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 95   95 96 2  
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 95   94 96 2  
               
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 55.6         *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 12.1         *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 11.1         *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 6.2         *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 78.0       1  
               
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 10.8 0.5 10.4 11.4 3  

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

References

Adamidou et al., 2009; AFZ, 2011; Albar, 2006; Beran et al., 2005; Bredon, 1957; CIRAD, 1991; CIRAD, 2008; Gowda et al., 2004; Guillaume, 1978; Jacob et al., 1996; Khanum et al., 2007; Lekule et al., 1990; Neumark, 1970; Pozy et al., 1996; Sibanda et al., 1993; Vermorel, 1973

Last updated on 30/09/2013 13:10:51

References
References 
Datasheet citation 

Heuzé V., Tran G., Hassoun P., Lessire M., Lebas F., 2016. Sunflower meal. Feedipedia, a programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. https://www.feedipedia.org/node/732 Last updated on September 1, 2016, 15:14

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