FAO

Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Humans have been using pulses, and legumes Pulses also play an important role in providing
in general, for millennia. Pulses currently
play a crucial role in sustainable development
due to their nutritional, environmental and
valuable products for animal feeding and thus
indirectly contribute to food security. Pulse
by-products are valuable sources of protein
Pulses and their by-products
economic values. The United Nations General
Assembly, at its 68th session, declared 2016
as the International Year of Pulses to further
and energy for animals and they do not
compete with human food. Available
information on this subject has been collated
as animal feed
promote the use and value of these important and synthesized in this book, to highlight the
crops. Pulses are an affordable source of nutritional role of pulses and their by-products
protein, so their share in the total protein as animal feed. This publication is one of
consumption in some developing countries the main contributions to the legacy of the
ranges between 10 and 40 percent. Pulses, International Year of Pulses. It aims to enhance
like legumes in general, have the important the use of pulses and their by-products in
ability of biologically fixing nitrogen and those regions where many pulse by-products
some of them are able to utilize soil-bound are simply dumped and will be useful for
phosphorus, thus they can be considered the extension workers, researchers, feed industry,
cornerstone of sustainable agriculture. policy-makers and donors alike.
Pulses and their by-products
as animal feed

by

P.L. SHERASIA, M.R. GARG & B.M. BHANDERI

Animal Nutrition Group, National Dairy Development Board, Anand, India

Edited by

TEODARDO CALLES
Plant Production and Protection Division (AGP)
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Rome, Italy

and

HARINDER P.S. MAKKAR

Animal Production and Health Division (AGA)
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Rome, Italy

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Rome, 2017
Recommended citation: Sharasia, P. L., Garg, M. R. & Bhanderi, B. M. 2017. Pulses and their by-products as
animal feed, edited by T. Calles & H. P. S. Makkar. Rome, FAO.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do
not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of
any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its
frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers,
whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or
recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The
views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views or policies of FAO.

ISBN: 978-92-5-109915-5

© FAO, 2017

FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information
product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed
for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or
services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright
holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied
in any way.

All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use
rights, should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to copyright@
fao.org

FAO information products are available on the FAO Website (www.fao.org/publications) and
can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org.
 iii

Contents
Foreword v
Acknowledgements vii
Glossary ix
Abbreviations and acronyms xiii
1. Introduction 1
2. Beans 7
2.1 Common bean 9
2.2 Lima bean 15
2.3 Scarlet runner bean 19
2.4 Tepary bean 21
2.5 Adzuki bean 23
2.6 Mung bean 25
2.7 Mungo bean 31
2.8 Rice bean 37
2.9 Moth bean 43

3. Broad bean 55
4. Pulses nes 67
4.1 Hyacinth bean 67
4.2 Jack bean 77
4.3 Winged bean 83
4.4 Guar bean 89
4.5 Velvet bean 97
4.6 African yam bean 109

5. Bambara bean 115

6. Pea 123
7. Chickpea 131
8. Cowpea 141
9. Pigeon pea 153
10. Lentil 163
iv

11. Common vetch 171

12. Lupins 179
13. A synthesis 191
APPENDIXES
A. Major international research centres working on
various pulse crops 203
B. Global production of major pulse crops 204
 v

Foreword

The pulse sector is undergoing dynamic changes at global, regional and country
levels, to meet the growing demand for protein. Projections indicate that demand
for pulses will continue to increase in developing counties due to growing
population and rising per capita incomes. Globally, the average share of pulses is
only 5 percent of the total protein consumption, but in several developing countries
their contribution ranges between 10 and 40 percent. Pulses are an important
crop group in the cropping patterns of several developing countries. They are of
particular importance for food and nutrition security, particularly in low-income
countries. In these countries they are the major source of protein often consumed
in the diet along with staples like wheat or rice. Pulses help to improve nutrition
and thus health and contribute to reduce poverty and hunger. Moreover, pulses –
and legume crops in general – are key components of sustainable, climate-resilient
cropping systems.
Pulses further play an important role in providing valuable by-products
for animal feeding and thus indirectly contribute to food security. There is
considerable potential to use crop by-products (e.g. straw and other plant parts) left
after harvesting the seeds as ruminant feed. Other by-products such as chunies (a
mix of seed coats and endosperm fractions) and husks, obtained during processing
of pulses for human consumption, are also good animal feeds. These by-products
are valuable sources of protein and energy. They do not compete with human food,
but contribute to decreasing cereals and soybean levels in the diets of livestock in
intensive livestock production systems. They are used by smallholder farmers,
particularly in Asia, in extensive or mixed crop-livestock production systems to
extenuate the feed shortage. Also their feeding provides important economic, social
and environmental benefits by saving grains used for feeding for animals.
There have been considerable research efforts on the use of pulses and their
by-products as animal feed, which has resulted in a large body of published and
unpublished data. However, an
authoritative review in this area
has been lacking. In order to fill
this gap and to raise awareness
on the use of pulses and their
by-products as animal feed, we
have collated and synthesized
the available information in this
comprehensive state-of-the-
© FAO/FERENC IZSA

art document. It highlights the

nutritional role of pulses and
pulse by-products as animal feed
and is a contribution to the legacy
vi

of the 2016 International Year of Pulses. This document will further enhance the
use of these feed resources in other continents, besides Asia, where many pulse
by-products are simply dumped. It is also expected that the synthesis presented
contributes to make the use of pulses and their by-products as animal feed more
efficient. This document will be useful for extension workers, researchers, feed
industry, policy-makers and donors alike.

Hans Dreyer Berhe Tekola

Director Director
Plant Production and Protection Division Animal Production and Health Division
Food and Agriculture Organization Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations of the United Nations
 vii

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the management of the National Dairy Development Board
of India for granting permission to take up this assignment. The editors thank
the Secretariat and Steering Committee of the International Year of Pulses for
the support given to this publication. Financial support of the Global Pulses
Confederation (GPC), the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock of the
Republic of Turkey, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
and Fertitecnica Colfiorito is gratefully acknowledged. We would like to thank
Dr Athanasios Tsivelikas from the International Center for Agricultural Research
in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Dr Daniel Debouck from the International Center
for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and Dr Michael Abberton and Olaniyi Oyatomi
from the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) for providing some
of the pictures used in this publication. We would like to express our gratitude to
Claudia Ciarlantini, Claudia Nicolai, Diana Gutiérrez, Michela Baratelli, Pedro
Javaloyes, Riccardo del Castello and many others who have helped in preparing
this publication. The authors would like to thank the three anonymous peer
reviewers, who made important suggestions for improving the final manuscript.
The authors and editors would like to thank Thorgeir Lawrence for final
editing to conform to FAO editorial style, Chrissi Redfern for laying out the
document and Fabrizio Puzzilli for designing the cover.
 ix

Glossary

Ad libitum. Unrestricted consumption of feed or water.

Anti-nutritional factors. Anti-nutritional factors are substances that when
present in animal feed or water reduce the availability of one or more nutrients.
As fed. As consumed by the animal.
Bran. Refers to the pericarp or outer coarse coat of the grain, which is removed
during processing.
Chuni. It consists primarily of the broken pieces of endosperm, including germ
and a portion of husks obtained as a by-product during the processing of pulse
grains for human consumption. The compound is valued as a concentrate feed,
as it is comparatively low in fibre and high in energy and protein contents in
comparison with roughages.
Concentrate. Any feed containing relatively low fibre (< 20 percent) and more
total digestible nutrients (> 60 percent).
Crop residues. Refers to the materials left in an agricultural field or orchard after
the crop has been harvested.
Dehulling. Process of removing the outer covering from grains or other seeds.
Dehulled grains. Grains from which the outer covering has been removed.
Digestibility. Refers to the extent to which a feedstuff is absorbed from an
animal’s gastrointestinal tract. It varies greatly with the type of feedstuff and
type of animal in context.
Digestible energy (DE). Digestible energy provides an indication of the actual
amount of energy from a feed that can be available for use by the animal.
Dry matter (DM). Represents everything contained in a feed sample except water;
this includes protein, fibre, fat, minerals, etc. In practice, it is the total weight
of feed minus the weight of water in the feed, expressed as a percentage.
Dry matter digestibility (DMD). Refers to the portion of the dry matter in a feed
that is digested by animals at a specified level of feed intake.
Dry matter intake (DMI). Refers to the amount of dry matter consumed by the
animal and is a central concept to any discussion of animal nutrition.
Forage. Refers to plants or plant parts other than separated grains fed to or grazed
by domestic animals. Forage may be fresh, dry or ensiled (such as pasture,
green chop, hay, haylage).
Haulms. Plant material above the ground level, harvested, dried and used for
feeding livestock.
Hay. The aerial part of fine-stemmed forage crops that has been cut and dried for
animal feeding.
Husks (Hulls). Husks are outer covering of grain or other seed, especially when
dry.
x

In sacco degradability. It is the same as in situ degradability, wherein a ground

feed sample is incubated in a porous nylon bag placed within the rumen for a
fixed time period; and loss in dry matter or nitrogen is measured and this loss
is taken as degradability.
In situ digestibility. In situ digestibility is determined by incubating a ground
forage sample in a porous nylon bag placed within the rumen via a fistula or
port in the animal’s side (in situ) for a fixed time period.
In vitro digestibility. In vitro digestibility of a feed is determined by incubating
a ground feed sample with rumen fluid in a beaker or test tube for 24 to 48
hours, followed either by addition of acid and pepsin and further incubation
for 24 hours or by boiling in neutral detergent fibre solution.
In vitro. In vitro (Latin for “within the glass”) generally refers to the technique of
performing a given biological procedure in a controlled environment outside
of a living organism. In feed testing, in vitro refers to a feed sample that is
digested in test tubes or tested outside the animal.
In vivo. Occurring in the living body.
Legume. A plant, member of the Leguminosae family, whose fruit is typically a
pod and with a majority of the plants having the ability to form symbiotic
nitrogen fixing nodules with bacteria on its roots.
Meal/korma. Meal is the main by-product of pulse industry, and rich in protein
(40–45 percent, DM basis). It is a mixture of germs and hulls, having
approximate ratio at 25:75 percent. Richer (50–55 percent, DM basis) protein
meal is also called korma.
Mixed-farming systems. Livestock systems in which more than 10 percent of the
dry matter fed to animals come from crop by-products or stubble, or more
than 10 percent of the total value of production come from non-livestock
farming activities.
Monogastric. Animals having a single compartment or simple stomach system
(such as swine, horse).
Offal/Waste. The offal/waste is produced after splitting the seeds in a mill to
remove the shells, winnowing to remove loosened testa and converting the
cotyledons into fine flour by milling several times followed by sieving.
Palatability. Refers to the appeal and acceptability of feedstuffs to an animal.
Palatability is affected by the feed’s odour, texture, moisture, physical form
and temperature. For forage to be considered “high-quality,” it must be highly
palatable because quality is related to intake, and palatability is required for
high intake levels.
Pulse. The word “pulse” originated from the Latin word puls - meaning thick
soup or potage. Pulses are important crops belonging to the Leguminosae
family. They comprise annual and perennial leguminous crops of which edible
seeds are used for both food and feed.
 xi

Roughage. Refers to bulky and coarse feed high in fibre (> ca 18 percent crude
fibre) but lower in energy than most concentrates. Roughage includes hays,
straws, silage, stover, legume plants, shrubs, tree foliage and grasses.
Ruminants. Ruminants are a class of animals that have multiple organs working
together to accomplish digestion. The digestive tract consists of the reticulum
(involved in rumination and in passage from the rumen to the omasum),
rumen (large compartment used for fermentation), omasum (once called
the manyplies, it removes excess liquid and nutrients moving out of the
reticulo-omasal orifice), and abomasum (acid-pepsin digestion similar to a
monogastric).
Screenings. Refers to the by-products of cleaning seeds, which can consist of
whole and broken seeds, cereal grains, weed seeds, chaff and dust.
Silage. Refers to feed preserved by an anaerobic fermentation process in which
lactic acid and volatile fatty acids (produced by fermentation) lower the pH
of the silage.
Stovers. Stovers are by-products after harvesting grains. They are given to the
livestock with various supplements. Stovers are much better roughages than
straws.
Straw. Refers to the crop residue consisting of the dry stems and leaves left after
the harvest of cereals, legumes and other crops.
Total digestible nutrients (TDN). A value that indicates the relative energy value
of a feed for an animal.
 xiii

Abbreviations and acronyms

ADF Acid detergent fibre

ADL Acid detergent lignin
BW Body weight
Ca Calcium
CF Crude fibre
cm Centimetre
CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture
Co Cobalt
CP Crude protein
Cu Copper
DM Dry matter
DMD Dry matter digestibility
DMI Dry matter intake
EE Ether extract
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
g/d Gram per day
h Hour
ha Hectare
HCN Hydrogen cyanide
ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas
IITA International Institute for Tropical Agriculture
kg/d Kilogram per day
m Metre
LWG Liveweight gain
masl Metres above (mean) sea level
ME Metabolizable energy
Mg Magnesium
min Minute (time)
MJ Megajoule
mm Millimetre
Mn Manganese
N Nitrogen
NDDB National Dairy Development Board (India)
NDF Neutral detergent fibre
nes Not elsewhere specified
NFE Nitrogen free extract
NRC National Research Council (United States of America)
xiv

OM Organic matter
OMD Organic matter digestibility
P Phosphorus
TIU Trypsin inhibitor units
W0.75 Metabolic body weight
Zn Zinc
 1

Chapter 1
Introduction
The word “pulse” originated from the Latin word puls – meaning thick soup
or potage. Pulses are important crops belonging to the Leguminosae family.
They comprise annual and perennial leguminous crops with edible seeds that
are used for both food and feed. According to FAO (1994), the term “pulses”
is limited to crops harvested solely for dry grain, thereby excluding those
crops used mainly for oil extraction [e.g. soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.)
and groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)] and for sowing purposes [e.g. seeds
of clover (different species belonging to the genus Trifolium L.) and alfalfa
(Medicago sativa L.)]. Likewise, legume species are not considered as pulses
when they are harvested as vegetables [e.g. green peas (Pisum sativum L.);
green beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)]. A list of pulse commodities (FAO, 1994),
including the scientific names of the species, is presented in Table 1.1.
Pulses have been cultivated for millennia and have become essential for
human and animal nutrition as well as for improving agronomic systems.
Pulses are grown in virtually every corner of the globe. They are an important
crop group in the cropping patterns of several developing countries in Asia,
Africa, and Latin America. Globally, pulse production increased from 44.9
million tonne in 1981-1983 to 72.3 million tonne in 2011-2013. The area under
production increased from 63 million hectare to 80 million hectare over the
same time period (IFPRI, 2016). India is the world’s largest pulse producer,
accounting for 34 percent of area, and 24 percent of total production in pulses.
Pulse production in India increased from 10.4 million tonne to 17.5 million
tonne from 1981-1983 to 2011-2013, mainly due to increases in the area under
production, from 22 million hectare to 27 million hectare (IFPRI, 2016). In
2011-2013 (average), the world’s biggest producers of pulses were India (24.3
percent), Myanmar (7.3 percent) Canada (7.0 percent), China (6.3 percent),
Nigeria (4.6 percent), Brazil (4.2 percent), Australia (4.2 percent), Russian
Federation (3.2 percent), Ethiopia (2.9 percent), and United States of America
(2.8 percent). Major international research centres working on various pulse
crops are given in Appendix A. Global production of major pulse crops is
given in Appendix B.
The pulse sector is undergoing dynamic changes at global, regional and
country levels, to meet the challenge of growing demand in face of sluggish
production growth. Projections indicate that demand for pulses will continue
to grow in the short-to-medium term in developing counties due to growing
population and rising per capita incomes. Globally, the average share of pulses
is only 5 percent of the total protein consumption, but their contribution
in several developing countries range between 10 and 40 percent (Joshi and
Parthasarathy Rao, 2016). Pulses are an important crop group in the cropping
patterns of several developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America;
2 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Table 1.1 Classification of pulses according to FAO (1994) and their global production for year 2014
FAO Commodity Remarks1 Production2
Code

176 Beans, dry This is an aggregated category that includes the following species: 25 093 616
1) Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
2) Lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus L.)
3) Scarlet runner bean (Phaseolus coccineus L.)
4) Tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius A. Gray)
5) Adzuki bean [Vigna angularis (Willd.) Ohwi & H. Ohashi]
6) Mung bean [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek]
7) Mungo bean [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper]
8) Rice bean [Vigna umbellata (Thunb.) Ohwi & H. Ohashi]
9) Moth bean [Vigna aconitifolia (Jacq.) Maréchal]
191 Chickpeas This category includes only one species: 14 239 010
1) Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
187 Peas, dry This category includes only one species: 11 332 772
1) Pea (Pisum sativum L.)
195 Cowpeas, This category includes only one species: 5 588 947
dry
1) Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]
201 Lentils This category includes only one species: 4 885 271
1) Lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.)
197 Pigeon This category includes only one species: 4 858 102
peas
1) Pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Huth]
181 Broad This category includes only one species: 4 297 465
beans
1) Broad bean (Vicia faba L.)
210 Lupins This is an aggregated category that includes several species of the 981 480
genus Lupinus L.:
1) Lupinus albus L.
2) Lupinus luteus L.
3) Lupinus angustifolius L.
4) Lupinus mutabilis Sweet
205 Vetches This category includes only one species: 883 238
1) Vetch (Vicia sativa L.)
203 Bambara This category includes only one species: 287 793
bean
1) Bambara bean [Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.]
211 Pulses nes3 This is aggregated which includes species of minor relevance at 5 151 560
international level:
1) Hyacinth bean [Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet]
2) Jack bean [Canavalia ensiformis (L.) DC.]
3) Winged bean [Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (L.) DC.]
4) Guar bean [Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.]
5) Velvet bean [Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC.]
6) African yam bean [Sphenostylis stenocarpa (Hochst. ex A. Rich.)
Harms]
1 Scientific names are sourced from the updated taxonomic database Tropicos (MBG, 2016).
2 The unit of measurement is tonne.
3 Stands for not elsewhere specified.
Introduction 3

and in these regions, they are an important component of the diet along
with staples like wheat and rice. They are of particular importance for food
security – and more importantly nutrition security – particularly in low-
income countries, where plant products are the major sources of protein. Pulse
crops can potentially help improve health and nutrition, reduce poverty and
hunger, and enhance ecosystem resilience.
The nutritional attributes of pulses for human nutrition are indisputable. In
addition to contributing directly to food security, pulses also play an important
role in providing valuable by-products for animal feeding and thus indirectly
contributing to food security. There is also considerable potential to use crop
by-products (crop residues) left after harvesting the seeds, as sources of dry
fodder for livestock. These by-products are good animal feeds and play an
important role in the feed-food security nexus. In addition, these by-products
do not compete with human food, and contribute to decreasing cereals and
soybean levels in the diets of livestock in intensive livestock production
systems. In semi-intensive ruminant production systems, by-products such
as pulse crop residues provide a good source of nutrients. They are used by
small-scale farmers in extensive or mixed crop-livestock production systems
to ameliorate feed shortage (Nigam and Blümmel, 2010). Pulse by-products
are also used to fill feed gaps during periods of acute shortage of other
feed resources and used as adjuncts to natural pastures and planted forages
(Williams et al., 1997).
The potential of pulses and their by-products as animal feed is governed
by mainly two factors: 1) the contribution of nutrients to the diet, and 2)
the presence of anti-nutritional factors. Pulse seeds are sources of energy,
fibre, amino acids, minerals, vitamins and essential fatty acids. However,
their contribution of energy and amino acids is what confers on them the
greatest economic potential in animal feeding. Feeding of by-products in
livestock production provides particularly important economic, social and
environmental benefits by saving grains used for feeding for animals. It also
encourages the return of the manure to farmland, thereby sparing use of
chemical fertilizers. Pulse cultivation also fixes atmospheric nitrogen and
increases soil nitrogen content, so playing also an important role in decreasing
the use of nitrogen fertilizers.
There are various factors that may influence the feeding value of crop
residues. Plant factors like species, stage of maturity at harvest, cultivar, and
proportions of leaf, sheath and stem influence the nutritive value of crop
residues (Agbagla et al., 2001; Qingxiang, 2002). Factors also known to affect
the composition and digestibility of straw are variety and cultivar (Mould et
al., 2001; Kafilzadeh and Maleki, 2012). The yield and composition of crop
residues could be influenced by environmental factors, including location,
climate, soil fertility and soil type (Qingxiang, 2002) and seasonal effects
(Mathison et al., 1999). Biological factors (genetic makeup of the crop) also
have influence on yield and quality of crop residues. The utilization of crop
4 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

residue nutrients is influenced by animal factors including species/genotype,

live weight, age, body condition, type and level of production and diseases.
The efficiency of utilization of crop residues is different among various
breeds and types of animals. Besides, growing and harvesting condition, and
threshing and storage methods could also affect their utilization by animals.
Legume straws, for example those of pulses, in general have high
metabolizable energy concentrations and lower neutral detergent fibre (NDF)
contents than cereal straws. This is because of their greater proportion of
highly digestible cell contents. Furthermore, legume straws have higher
dry matter digestibility than that of the cereal straws (López et al., 2005).
Legume straws also have higher concentrations of pectins than grasses, and
these carbohydrates are important components of the intracellular spaces
and degraded extensively by rumen micro-organisms. In addition, pulse crop
residues (straw) contain lesser fibre and higher digestible protein than cereal
straws (Solomon, 2004; Tolera, 2007).
The General Assembly of the United Nations declared 2016 as the
International Year of Pulses. To create awareness on use of pulse by-products
as animal feed, the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) of India,
with the support of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO), Rome produced this state-of-the art document on “Pulses
and their by-products as animal feed”. In this document, we have attempted
to highlight the nutritional role of pulse by-products for domestic animals
that provide milk, meat and eggs. The by-products covered are plant residues
(plant remaining after harvesting pulse grains), chunies and husks. Chunies
are a mix of seed coats and endosperm fractions, husk is only the seed coat,
and these are obtained during processing of pulses for human consumption.
Each pulse has been described under sub-headings such as common names,
description, distribution, production, chemical composition, anti-nutritional
factors and effect of feeding in ruminants, pig and poultry.

REFERENCES CITED IN CHapter 1

Agbagla-Dohnani, A., Noziere, P., Clement, G. & Doreau, M. 2001. In sacco degradability,
chemical and morphological composition of 15 varieties of European rice straw. Animal Feed
Science and Technology, 94: 15–27.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1994. Definition and
classification of commodities, 4. Pulses and derived products.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/es/faodef/ fdef04e.htm
Joshi, P.K. & Parthasarathy Rao, P. 2016. Global and Regional Pulse Economies - Current
Trends and Outlook. Discussion Paper 01544. International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, DC. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2813381
Kafilzadeh, F. & Maleki, E. 2012. Chemical composition, in vitro digestibility and gas
production of straws from different varieties and accessions of chickpea. Journal of Animal
Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 96(1): 111–118. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2011.01131.x
Introduction 5

IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). 2016. The Food Security Portal. IFPRI,
Washington, DC.
López, S., Davies, D.R., Giráldez, F.J., Dhanoa, M.S., Dijkstra, J. & France, J. 2005.
Assessment of nutritive value of cereal and legume straws based on chemical composition and
in vitro digestibility. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85: 1550–1557.
Mathison, G.W., Soofi-Siawash, R., Okine, E.K., Helm, J. & Juskiw, P. 1999. Factors
influencing composition and ruminal degradability of barley straw. Canadian Journal of
Animal Science, 79: 343–351.
Available at: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.4141/A99-012
MBG (Missouri Botanical Garden). 2016. Tropicos database.
Available at http://www.tropicos.org
Mould, F.L., Hervás, G., Owen, E., Wheeler, T.R., Smith, N.O. & Summerfield, R.J. 2001. The
effect of cultivar on the rate and extent of combining pea straw degradability examined in vitro
using the reading pressure technique. Grass Forage Science, 56: 374–382.
Nigam, S.N. & Blümmel, M. 2010. Cultivar dependent variation in food-feed-traits in groundnut
(Arachis hypogaea L.). Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology, 10 (Special Issue): 39–48.
Qingxiang, M. 2002. Composition, nutritive value and upgrading of crop residues. In: Tingshung,
G., & Sanchoz, M.D. (eds). Animal production based on crop residues - Chinese experiences.
FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 149. Rome.
Solomon, B. 2004. Assessment of livestock production systems and feed resource base in Sinana
Dinsho district of Bale highlands Southeast of Oromia. pp. 15–101, in: MSc Thesis, Alemaya
University, Ethiopia.
Tolera, A. 2007. Feed resources for producing export quality meat and livestock in Ethiopia.
Ethiopia Sanitary & Phytosanitary Standards and Livestock & Meat Marketing Program
(SPS-LMM), Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (TAES)/ Texas A&M University System.
Examples from Selected Woredas in Oromia and SNNP Regional States. Hawassa University,
Addis Ababa.
Williams, T.O., Fernández–Rivera, S. & Kelley, T.G. 1997. The influence of socio-economic
factors on the availability and utilization of crop residues as animal feeds. Pp. 25–40,
in: Renard, C. (ed). Crop residues in sustainable mixed crop/livestock farming systems.
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, India.
 7

Chapter 2
Beans
The word “bean” originates from the old German word böna (in modern
German Bohne) and has been in use since the eleventh century. Bean originally
meant the seed of the broad bean (Vicia faba L.), but was later broadened
to include members of the genus Phaseolus L., such as the common bean or
haricot (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and the runner bean (Phaseolus coccineus L.),
and other Leguminosae genera like Vigna Savi and Glycine Willd. Currently,
the term is mostly applied to refer to the plant and seed of the allied genus
Phaseolus (Proffitt, 2016). Indeed, the FAOSTAT category “dry beans”
originally comprised only species of the genus Phaseolus (FAO, 1994).
However, species delimitations in the genus Phaseolus have been revised
through new taxonomic evidence and, consequently, five species originally
included into this category are currently treated as Vigna (i.e. Vigna angularis,
V. radiata, V. mungo, V. umbellata and V. aconitifolia) (FAO, 2016). In this
chapter, the term beans is used to refer to the nine species classified by FAO
(1994) as “dry beans”.
Beans of Phaseolus species are one of the most ancient crops of the New
World, and they have been a dominant staple in the low-to-mid altitudes of
the Americas for millennia. Beans are extremely diverse crops in terms of
cultivation methods, uses, the range of environments to which they have been
adapted, and morphological variability. They are found from sea level up to
3 000 m above mean sea level (masl), and are cultivated in monoculture, in
associations, or in rotations. Beans are consumed as mature grain, as immature
seed, as well as a vegetable (both leaves and pods).
Beans of Vigna species have a pantropical distribution and economically
important pulses of this genus originated either from Africa or Asia. They are
adapted to a broad range of environmental conditions and can be found up to
1 800 masl.
Beans, as an aggregate commodity comprising species of the genera
Phaseolus and Vigna, are the most important pulses for direct human
consumption in the world. Total production exceeds 23 million tonne, of
which 7 million tonne are produced in Latin America and Africa (Broughton
et al., 2003). Bean seeds contain between 20 and 25 percent proteins, much
of which is made up of the storage protein phaseolin (Ma and Bliss, 1978).
Phaseolin is a major determinant of both quantity and nutritional quality of
proteins in bean seeds (Gepts and Bliss, 1984). Like other seed proteins of the
legume family, phaseolin is deficient in sulphur-containing amino acids such as
methionine. Taxonomy and species information of beans are described below:
8 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Table 2.1 Taxonomic affinities of dry beans

Rank Scientific name and common name

Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Super division Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Rosidae

Order Fabales

Family Leguminosae – Pea family

Subfamily Papilionoideae

Genus Phaseolus L. and Vigna Savi – Beans

Species Phaseolus vulgaris L. – Common bean

Phaseolus lunatus L. – Lima bean

Phaseolus coccineus L. – Scarlet runner bean

Phaseolus acutifolius A. Gray – Tepary bean

Species Vigna angularis (Willd.) Ohwi & H. Ohashi – Adzuki bean

Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek – Mung bean

Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper – Mungo bean

Vigna umbellata (Thunb.) Ohwi & H. Ohashi – Rice bean

Vigna aconitifolia (Jacq.) Maréchal – Moth bean

Beans: Common bean 9

2.1 Common bean

COMMON NAMES
Beans, bush bean, flageolet bean, French bean, garden bean, green bean, haricot
bean, kidney bean, navy bean, pole bean, snap bean, string bean (English);
haricot à couper, haricot, haricot commun, haricot pain, flageolet, haricot
vert (French); judía, frijol comun, nuña, habichuela, poroto, vainita (Spanish);
feijão, feijoeiro (Portuguese); gewone boon (Dutch); Gartenbohne (German);
buncis (Indonesian); fagiolo (Italian); maharage (Swahili); fasulye (Turkish).

DISTRIBUTION
The common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) originated in Central and South
America. It is an ancient crop and archaeological evidence indicates that it was
being cultivated as early as 6 000 BC. The crop was brought to Africa in the
sixteenth century by Portuguese traders and carried to high-altitude regions
by slave trading caravans and merchants. Domestication occurred in Central
America (Mexico and Guatemala) and in South America (Peru) independently,
leading to two distinct genepools. Today, common bean is a globally important
crop, especially in North and South America, Europe, Africa and Asia.

DESCRIPTION
Common bean is widely cultivated for its delicious seeds which add flavour and
protein to the diets of people throughout the world. This ancient crop belongs
in the Leguminosae family and like many other legumes it has an ability to fix
nitrogen from the air through a symbiotic relationship with bacteria housed
in its root nodules. As a result, common bean is high in protein and in many
parts of the world, it is considered as the ´meat of the poor´. The impressive
diversity of colours, textures and tastes of the common bean make it a popular
choice for people everywhere.
Common bean is a highly
polymorphic warm-season,
herbaceous annual. There are
two types of plant: (1) Erect
herbaceous bushes, up to 20–60
cm high; and (2) Twining,
climbing vines up to 2–5 m long
(Ecocrop, 2013). It has a taproot
© CIAT/Daniel Debouck

with many adventitious roots.

The stems of bushy types are
rather slender, pubescent and
many-branched. In twining
types, the stems are prostrate
for most of their length and Photo 2.1.1 Seeds of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
 10 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

rise toward the end. The leaves,

borne on long green petioles,
are green or purple in colour
and trifoliate. The flowers are
arranged in pairs or solitary along
the rachis, white to purple and
typically papilionaceous. Once
pollinated, each flower gives rise
to one pod. Pods are slender,
© CIAT/Daniel Debouck

green, yellow, black or purple

in colour, sometimes striped.
The pods may contain 4 to 12
seeds. The seeds are 0.5–2 cm
Photo 2.1.2 Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) long, kidney-shaped and highly
intercropped with maize (Zea mays L.) variable in colour depending on
the cultivar: white, red, green,
tan, purple, grey or black. Mature pods and seeds are dried. Crop residues,
such as dried pods and stems (straw) and processing by-products (discarded
pods) can be used as animal feed (Wortmann, 2006).

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR CULTIVATION

Common bean grows well at temperatures ranging from 15 to 27 °C and
withstands temperatures up to 29.5 °C. High temperature (close to or higher
than 35 °C) and moisture stress during flower and pod setting results in
abortion of large numbers of blossoms and developing pods. The ideal rainfall
growing conditions are 350–500 mm rainfall during the growing season,
combined with low relative humidity to minimize risk of bacterial and fungal
disease (Salcedo, 2008). Most types of bean require a frost-free growing
season of 85 to 120 days. Suitable soil types range is from light to moderately
heavy and to peaty (with organic matter) soils with near-neutral pH and good
drainage. Common bean is sensitive to salt.

SEED PRODUCTION
According to FAO (2013), production of dry beans (Phaseolus L. and
Vigna species) was about 23 million tonne in 2012, cultivated on 29 million
ha. Myanmar, India, Brazil, China, the United States of America, Mexico
and the United Republic of Tanzania represented two-thirds of the world
production of dry beans. China was the main producer of fresh beans
(Phaseolus and Vigna species: 17 million tonne in 2011, 77 percent of total
world production). Common bean is less known in Asia where other pulses
are preferred.

COMMON BEAN AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

These beans are usually processed by cooking in water, before consumption,
Beans: Common bean 11

Table 2.1.1. Chemical composition of common bean and its straw by-product (percent, DM
basis)
Parameter Seed Straw

Crude protein 22.2–27.4 4.8–10.7

Ether extract 1.1–2.4 0.7–1.8
Crude fibre 43.3–7.9 38.1–45.2
NDF 16.1–25.8 51.1–86.4
ADF 4.8–9.9 37.3–56.9
Lignin 0.1–0.3 5.4–9.3
Ash 4.0–6.5 7.2–12.1
Calcium 0.12–0.51 0.68–1.15
Phosphorus 0.21–0.63 0.09–0.13
Notes: DM (as fed) is 84.5–92.7 percent and 81.2–94.4 percent, for seed and straw, respectively.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).

whereas, some beans are consumed after roasting or after milling into flour
(Siddiq and Uebersax, 2012). Immature seed pods are consumed as vegetables
in some regions, and straw from the plants is used as forage (Broughton et al.,
2003). Common bean pods can be harvested 25–30 days after flowering and
yields up to 5–7.5 tonne/ha of green pods (Ecocrop, 2013). If common bean
is grown for dry beans, another 23–50 days are required for seed-filling. The
average yield of dried beans is 0.5–1.5 tonne/ha, but yields up to 2.8–5 tonne/
ha have been reported by Wortmann (2006). A yield of 1.6 kg green biomass/
m² (about 16 tonne green biomass/ha) has been reported (CNC, 2004).

Common bean crop residue (straw)

Bean crop residues (straw) can be fed to livestock fresh, or after ensiling. It
can be mixed with grains in order to increase the protein content of the silage
(Linn et al., 2002). Intercropping common bean with maize (Zea mays L.)
gives silage yields that are as high as with monocropped maize, but richer in
protein (Dawo, Wilkinson and Pilbeam, 2009). The chemical composition of
bean crop residues depends on the proportions of stems, pod husks and leaves.
The stems and pod husks have low protein content (8 and 4 percent, DM
basis, respectively), while the leaves are much richer in protein (20 percent,
DM basis) (Pieltain et al., 1996). Common bean straw (haulms) contains about
5–11 percent protein (DM basis) and is rich in fibre (38–45 percent, DM basis),
as shown in Table 2.1.1. However, like other legume straws, it has a higher
nutritive value than cereal straws due greater protein and lower fibre content.

Digestibility. The common bean residues such as stems, leaves and pods,
contain metabolizable energy with 9.2 MJ/kg DM for stems, 8.5 MJ/kg DM
for leaves and 10 MJ/kg DM for pods. These values are close to that of medium
quality grass hay. Protein degradability in the rumen was very high (70
percent) (Pieltain et al., 1996). Due to higher protein and lower fibre content,
bean straw has a higher DM digestibility and metabolizable energy content
12 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

than cereal straws. Leaf-rich straw has a higher in vitro DM digestibility than
stem-rich straw (74 vs 68 percent) and a higher ME (8.0 vs 7.3 MJ/kg DM,
estimated by the gas production method) (López et al., 2005).

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Common beans contain several anti-nutritional compounds, notably enzyme
(trypsin, chymotrypsin, alpha-amylase) inhibitors, phytic acid, flatulence
factors, saponins and lectins (Krupa, 2008). These anti-nutritional factors may
affect the performance of monogastric animals or even be toxic; for example
lectins are known to have caused food poisoning in humans who have eaten
undercooked or raw beans. Therefore, it is highly recommended to process
raw common beans before feeding to pigs, poultry and other monogastric
livestock. Treatments such as heating, autoclaving, cooking or extruding have
been shown to remove heat-sensitive anti-nutritional factors (Akande et al.,
2010). Biological treatments such as germination, ensiling, treatment with
pancreatin or with chemicals can also be effective in removing anti-nutritional
factors in common beans (Egli et al., 2002). Lectin content may be reduced by
cooking above 100 °C, but cooking at a lower temperature (80 °C) increased
lectin content and toxicity (FDA, 2012).

FEEDING OF SEED AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS

Cattle
Buschinelli de Goes et al. (2013) evaluated productive performance, nutrient
digestibility and ruminal fermentation parameters on the inclusion of common
beans at 0, 13 and 26 percent in the diet of cattle. The study found that the
addition of beans in the diet did not affect animal performance, dry matter
intake (DMI) and feed efficiency. However, the digestibility of DM, OM,
CP, EE and total carbohydrates decreased with the inclusion of 26 percent.
The best digestibility was observed at the 13 percent inclusion level. Thus,
common bean can be included up to 13 percent in the diet of feedlot cattle.
Nunes (1998) also recommended including common bean at between 15 and
20 percent of the concentrate for growing cattle.
A study conducted by Patterson et al. (1999) in Eastern Colorado revealed
that feeding raw beans to cattle reduced feed intake, due to a palatability
problem. However, mixing the beans with sunflower meal eliminated the
palatability problem in beef cows grazing native winter range. Body weight,
body condition score, reproductive performance and calf performance were
not affected by feeding raw beans.

Goats
Bean straw and maize stubbles included at 15 percent in goat diets resulted in
lower body weight gains and feed efficiency than those obtained with a good
quality, forage-based diet (Serrato Corona, Partida Rodríguez and López
Martínez, 2004). Aredo and Musimba (2003) reported that bean haulms were
Beans: Common bean 13

poorly ingested and digested by low-producing goats in Ethiopia. RamÍrez

and Ledezma-Torres (1997) evaluated that feeding bean straw at 75 to 80
percent of the basal diet (up to 3.5 percent BW) did not affect nutrient intake
and DM digestibility in goats.

Llama
López and Morales (2001) demonstrated that on feeding llamas (Lama
glama) bean straw, the intake and protein digestibility were similar to those
of ryegrass hay (29 g/kg BW0.75/d and 35 percent, respectively). Similarly, the
digestibilities of neutral detergent fibre (NDF) (54 percent) and acid detergent
fibre (ADF) (52 percent) were similar to those of oat straw.

Pigs
Unprocessed common beans contain anti-nutritional factors that are deleterious
to pigs. Therefore, it is recommended to process common beans before feeding
to pigs. Raw beans included at 20 percent of the diet reduced weight of
pancreas thymus and spleen weight, protein digestibility, nitrogen (N) balance
and overall performance (Huisman et al., 1990a). However, heat treatments
(102 °C for 20 min or 136 °C for 1.5 min) were shown to have beneficial effects
on the nutritive value of common beans as they almost completely inactivated
anti-nutritional factors. Heating also enhanced the digestibility of dry matter,
protein and lysine (van der Poel et al., 1991a; van der Poel et al., 1991b).
However, in piglets, compared with maize-casein, common beans heated at
105 °C for 20 min were less readily eaten, and growth rate was reduced (van
der Poel, 1990).

Poultry
A study conducted by Ofongo and Ologhobo (2007) in Nigeria, indicated that
50 percent soybean meal protein replacement with cooked kidney beans gave
performance that was equally as good as feeding either soybean [Glycine max
(L.) Merr.] meal or groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cake as protein source.
Chicken fed raw beans had no differences in spleen and thymus weights
compared with those fed the control diet (Huisman et al., 1990b). However,
raw common beans increased weight of the intestine and decreased liver weight
(Emiola and Ologhobo, 2006). Liver showed marked coagulative necrosis and
degeneration of hepatocytes, while there was a severe congestion of glomeruli
and distention of the capillary vessels with thrombi in the kidneys (Emiola
and Ologhobo, 2006; Emiola, Ologhobo and Gous, 2007a; Emiola, Ologhobo
and Gous, 2007b). Fermented common beans included at levels ranging from
5 to 20 percent in poultry diets reduced feed intakes, live-weight gains and
feed efficiency. It was suggested to limit their inclusion to 5 percent in the diet
(Siriwan, Pimsan and Nakkitset, 2005a; Siriwan, Pimsan and Nakkitset, 2005b).
Several experiments showed that aqueous cooking, in preference to
toasting, or soaking-extruding improved the nutritive value of common beans
14 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

in poultry diets, with satisfactory results compared with control diets (Emiola,
Ologhobo and Gous, 2007a; Emiola, Ologhobo and Gous, 2007b). With boiled,
cooked or extruded common beans, digestibilities of nutrients (protein, amino
acids, ether extract, crude fibre, ash and N) were higher than with raw, toasted
or dehulled beans (Arija et al., 2006). Heat-processed common beans replaced
up to 50 percent of the protein provided by soybean meal (Emiola, Ologhobo
and Gous, 2007a; Emiola, Ologhobo and Gous, 2007b). Heat processed beans
included at 20 percent of the diet replaced completely soybean and groundnut
meal mixtures without loss of performance (Emiola et al., 2003), but with
soybean meal in a maize-soybean based diet, complete replacement was not
satisfactory (Arija et al., 2006). Common beans, boiled for 30 minutes under
an uncontrolled temperature and pressure, could not satisfactorily replace
meat meal and fishmeal at 11 percent of the diet for starters and at 14 percent
for finisher broilers (Defang et al., 2008). Roasted beans gave poorer results
than full-fat soybean seeds, soybean meal or cottonseed meal for boilers (Poné
and Fomunyam, 2004).

SUMMARY
Common beans can be mixed with other protein meals and incorporated
at up to 20 percent in the ration of large ruminants. Due to presence of
various anti-nutritional factors, it is recommended to process raw common
beans before feeding to pig, poultry and other monogastric animals. Heat
treatment increases the nutritive value of common beans. Up to 50 percent
of the protein provided by soybean meal in poultry diet can be replaced by
common beans.
 15

2.2 Lima bean

COMMON NAMES
Butter bean, Java bean, Madagascar bean, sieva bean, sugar bean (English);
haricot de Lima, haricot du Cap, pois du Cap (French); feijão de Lima, fava
belém (Portuguese); frijol de luna, haba lima, judía de Lima, pallar, garrofón,
guaracaro (Spanish); kacang kratok (Indonesian); Limabohne, Mondbohne
(German); fagiolo di Lima (Italian); pwachouk (Haitian Creole); patani
(Tagalog).

DISTRIBUTION
Lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus L.) originated in the Neotropics and has two
main centres of domestication. The small-seeded genotypes were developed in
Central America and the large-seeded types were cultivated in South America
(mainly in Peru) as far back as 6 000 BC. After domestication, lima bean
spread throughout the Americas, and the Spaniards imported it to the Pacific
Islands and the Philippines. It later spread to South-East Asia, Western and
Central Africa. Today, lima bean is cultivated throughout the tropics.

DESCRIPTION
Lima bean is a tropical and sub-tropical legume cultivated for its edible seeds,
which are enjoyed by millions of people throughout the world. Also known as
butter bean on account of its creamy taste, lima bean adds flavour, protein and
important minerals such as manganese and iron, to a wide variety of dishes. It
is also highly valued for its medicinal properties.
Wild and cultivated types of lima bean are generally referred to as Phaseolus
lunatus var. silvester Baudet and P. lunatus var. lunatus, respectively. Lima bean
is a herbaceous plant with two main types of growth habit. The perennial
form is an indeterminate,
vigorous, climbing and trailing
plant, up to 2–6 m tall, with
axillary flowering only. It has
swollen and fleshy roots up to
2 m long. Annual lima bean is
a pseudo-determinate, bushy
plant, 0.3–0.9 m tall with both
terminal and axillary flowering.
© CIAT/Daniel Debouck

It has thin roots. The stems may

be up to 4.5–8 m long. The leaves
are alternate and trifoliate with
ovate leaflets, 3–19.5 cm long ×
1–11 cm broad. Inflorescences
are 15 cm long and bear 24 white Photo 2.2.1 Seeds of lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus L.)
 16 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

or violet bisexual flowers. The

fruits are 5–12 cm long, dehiscent
pods with 2 to 4 seeds (Ecocrop,
2011). Seeds are very variable in
size, shape and colour. The vines,
leaves and empty pods left after
the harvest can serve as fodder,
and can be made into hay or
silage.
© CIAT/Daniel Debouck

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR

CULTIVATION
Lima bean is found in humid,
Photo 2.2.2 Plant of lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus L.) with sub-humid and semi-arid
flowers and pods tropical climates as well as warm
temperate climates. In humid
climates, it is often intercropped with cereal crops, root crops or other crops,
while in drier climates it tends to be used as sole crop. Lima bean requires a
dry period for the seeds to mature. Lima bean grows better in areas where
temperatures range from 16 to 27 °C, with annual rainfall from 900 to 1 500
mm. Once well established, it can withstand rainfall as low as 500–600 mm.
Perennial forms of lima bean are considered drought resistant. Lima bean
is tolerant of a wide range of soils but prefers well-drained soils with a pH
above 6. However, some cultivars do well in acid soils with a pH as low as 4.4
(Ecocrop, 2011).

LIMA BEAN AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

Lima bean seeds
Lima beans are relatively rich in protein (25 percent, DM basis) and starch (40
percent, DM basis), but low in fibre (5 percent, DM basis) and fat (<1.5 percent,
DM basis), as shown in Table 2.2.1. The seeds of lima bean are sometimes used
to feed livestock, but there is a risk of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) poisoning
if used raw. Dry or moist heat treatment is an effective way to remove anti-
nutritional factors in lima beans (Adeparusi, 2001). Soaking and cooking lima
beans remove most of the HCN, and sub-lethal poisoning can be alleviated by
supplements of iodine and sulphur amino acids (Barnes et al., 2007)

Lima bean crop residue (straw)

The nutritive value of lima bean straw is comparable to that of cereal and
grass hays. Therefore, it can be used as livestock feed for cattle and sheep. It
is suggested that it can be fed in combination with alfalfa (Medicago sativa
L.) hay in order to increase its protein content. Dairy cows can be fed on
lima bean vines, with or without seeds. Vines should be chopped in order to
enhance palatability.
Beans: Lima bean 17

Table 2.2.1 Chemical composition of lima bean and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Parameter Seeds Vines (fresh) Vines (dehydrated)

Crude protein 18.9–28.2 19.4 12.5

Ether extract 08.8–1.7 1.5 1.9
Crude fibre 41.1–6.6 29.3
NDF 13.3 38.2 45.8
ADF 6.0 17.0 34.7
Lignin 7.4
Ash 4.0–5.5 11.6
Calcium 0.06–1.12
Phosphorus 0.43–0.78
Notes: DM (as fed) is 88.4 percent for seeds and 38.6 percent for fresh vines.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).

Silage can be made from young vines and can be fed to growing and milking
cattle (Ishler and Adams, 2010). However, it is recommended to limit the
feeding of bean silage to 60 to 80 percent of the usual intake of forage dry
matter (Ishler and Adams, 2010). Ajayi (2011) reported that a silage made
of young lima bean vines (before flowering), fresh Napier grass (Pennisetum
purpureum Schumach.) and pineapple pulp has high dietary protein content,
nutrient digestibility, nitrogen absorption and retention, and its feeding also
reduced weight loss of goats during the dry season in Nigeria. Ajayi et al.
(2012) also observed that in a comparison with silages made from the vines of
either lima bean, pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Huth] or African yam bean
[Sphenostylis stenocarpa (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) Harms] the silage based on lima
bean vines alone, produced the optimal growth rate and weight gain in goats.

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Lima bean seeds and leaves contain cyanogenic glucosides (linamarin and
phaseolunatin) and linamarase – an enzyme that turns cyanogenic glucosides
into hydrogen cyanide (HCN). The level of HCN varies with maturity, stage
of development, genotype and cultivation conditions. Young leaves and seeds
have higher HCN production potential (Ballhorn, Lieberei and Ganzhorn,
2005), whereas, cultivated varieties contain much lower cyanoglucosides
than wild varieties (100–120 ppm vs 2000–2400 ppm) (Baudoin, 2006). Lima
bean foliage contains a wide range of anti-nutritional factors such as oxalate
(5 percent), saponins (1.3 percent), phytic acid (1.8 percent) and tannins (6.5
percent) (Ajayi et al., 2009).

FEEDING OF LIMA BEAN AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS

Cattle
Dairy cows can be fed on lima bean vines (with or without seeds). Vines
should be chopped in order to enhance palatability. Young vines cut when the
leaves were still green resulted in higher intake and were more nutritious. The
18 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

OM digestibility of lima bean foliage ranges from 56 percent (based on in vitro

gas production) to 68 percent (in vivo), corresponding to ME values of 8.4 and
9.2, respectively (Ajayi et al., 2009).

Sheep and goats

Ajayi (2011) in Nigeria studied the digestibility of fibre fractions of various
beans and found highest digestibility in lima bean/grass silage, followed by
that in pigeon pea/grass silage, and least in napier grass silage fed to goats.
Nitrogen absorbed (69.7 percent) and nitrogen retention (54.8 percent) were
highest in goats fed lima bean/grass silage and were significantly (P<0.05)
different from other treatments. In another study Ajayi et al. (2012) also
reported that the silage based on lima bean vines produced the optimal growth
rate and weight gain in goats, as compared with silages made from the vines of
either lima bean, pigeon pea or African yam bean.

Pigs
To the authors’ knowledge, no study is available on the effect of feeding lima
beans to pigs. It is likely that the presence of anti-nutritional factors limits
the use of raw lima beans in pig diets. Heat treatment might allow the use of
lima beans in limited amounts, at least in less sensitive adult pigs. Research is
required to address these issues.

Poultry
Raw lima beans should not be used in poultry. They negatively affect growth
and metabolism in broilers, mainly due to the presence of anti-nutritional
factors such as lectins and trypsin-inhibitors (Achi, Adelanwa and Ahmed,
2007). However, thermal treatments can alleviate adverse effects (Akande
et al., 2010). Akinmutimi, Aligwara and Abasiekong (2008) reported that
boiled and toasted lima beans included at 5 percent in broiler diets improved
performance when compared with the soybean-based control diet. At higher
levels, growth was reduced but feed efficiency was maintained due to a lower
feed intake. It is reported that, after thermal treatment, lima beans can be used
up to a maximum of 10 percent in broiler diets (Akande et al., 2010). However,
due to the potential long-term effects of anti-nutritional factors, it is not
advisable to use lima beans in layer diets.

SUMMARY
Raw seeds of lima bean cannot be used as livestock feed, as they may cause
hydrogen cyanide poisoning. Silage made from lima bean vines can be fed
to cattle at up to 80 percent of the total forage DM intake. Silage can also
be used in the diet of sheep and goats. Raw lima bean is not recommended
for broilers; although, after thermal treatment, it can be incorporated to a
maximum of 10 percent in the broiler diet.
 19

2.3 Scarlet runner bean

COMMON NAMES
Case knife bean, multiflora bean, runner bean, or scarlet runner bean.

DISTRIBUTION
Scarlet bean is native to montane Central America, where it has been
domesticated for over 2 000 years, and the wild type still grows in the region.
Cultivars are widely grown for their ornamental flowers and edible seeds.

DESCRIPTION
Scarlet runner beans (Phaseolus coccineus L.) are notable among the world’s
many beans for several reasons. Unlike most beans the plant is perennial,
albeit it is usually killed to the ground – or totally – by winter frosts. Also it
is among the most productive
of all beans. It is the only edible
bean grown extensively as a
mere ornamental, because of
its gorgeous scarlet flowers.
The flowers are large (around
2.5 cm or more wide), and are
clustered like those of sweet-

© CIAT/Daniel Debouck
peas. So even if the big bean
pods were not produced, or
were inedible, this plant would
be valued for its looks. It has
been called the Flowering
bean. The old name multiflorus Photo 2.3.1 Seeds of scarlet runner bean (Phaseolus
alludes to its multitudes of coccineus L.)
flowers. The name coccineus
means scarlet in Latin.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR

CULTIVATION
Scarlet runner beans are best
grown in consistently moist,
fertile, organically-rich, well-
© CIAT/Daniel Debouck

drained loams in full sun.

Runner beans are perennials in
frost-free climates, but die to the
ground at first autumn frost in
temperate climates where they Photo 2.3.2 Plant of scarlet runner bean (Phaseolus
are grown as annuals. Runner coccineus L.) with flowers and pods
20 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

beans cannot tolerate frost at all, nor will they set fruit while temperatures are
above 32 ºC. Scarlet runner beans need abundant water during flowering and
pod expansion.
The authors found no study available on the nutritive value of the scarlet
runner bean by-products in animals.

SUMMARY
No information about effect of feeding scarlet runner bean and its
by-products to animals was found available. More studies are required to
explore the potential of their use in livestock rations.
 21

2.4 Tepary bean

COMMON NAMES
Escomite, pawi, pavi, tepari, yori mui, yorimuni, or yori muni.

DISTRIBUTION
Tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius A. Gray) is native to the south-western United
States of America and to Mexico, and has been grown there by the native peoples
since pre-Columbian times. It is more drought-resistant than the common
bean and is grown in desert and semi-desert
conditions from Arizona through Mexico to
Costa Rica. The water requirements are low
and the crop grows in areas where annual
rainfall is less than 400 mm.

DESCRIPTION
The name tepary may derive from the Tohono
O’odham phrase t’pawi or “It is a bean”. The

© CIAT/Daniel Debouck
tepary bean is an annual and can be climbing,
trailing, or erect with stems up to 4 m long. A
narrow leafed, var. tenuifolius, and a broader
leafed, var. latifolius, are known. In the
Sonora desert, “the flowers appear with the
Photo 2.4.1 Seeds of tepary bean (Phaseolus
summer rains, first appearing in late August,
acutifolius A. Gray)
with the pods ripening early in the fall dry
season, most of them in October” (Nabhan
and Felger, 1978). The beans can be of nearly
any colour. There are many local landraces.
Beans vary in size but tend to be small. They
mature 60 to 120 days after planting.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR CULTIVATION

Tepary bean is grown as a sole crop or
intercropped with cereals (sorghum, millet,
maize), vegetables (Allium, Brassica,
Capsicum, Cucurbita spp.), or other pulses.
In the United States of America and Mexico
© CIAT/Daniel Debouck

tepary bean is sometimes sown in unsorted

admixtures with common bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris L.), thus providing greater yield
stability than common bean alone and higher
potential yields than tepary bean alone
Photo 2.4.2 Plant of tepary bean (Phaseolus
(Mogotsi, 2006a).
acutifolius A. Gray) with pods
22 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no study is available on the nutritive

value of tepary bean by-products in animals.

SUMMARY
No information about effect of feeding tepary bean and its by-products was
found available. More studies are required to explore its potential as animal
feed.
 23

2.5 Adzuki bean

COMMON NAMES
Aduki, azuki, or English red mung bean.

DISTRIBUTION
Adzuki bean [Vigna angularis (Willd.) Ohwi & H. Ohashi] is an important
grain legume in East Asia. In Japan, adzuki bean is the second most
economically important grain legume, after soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]
Adzuki beans are small, usually red, and are popular in Japan and other parts
of Asia. It is a traditional legume crop, grown throughout East Asia and the
Himalayas for its small bean (Zong et al., 2003).

DESCRIPTION
The plant is erect, 30 to 60 cm high, although some gardeners have reported
them to be indeterminate, growing and producing until frost. The yellow
flowers are followed by a cluster of several smooth, short, small, cylindrical
pods. Leaves resemble those of cowpea while the pods are much like mung
bean pods. The seeds are smaller than common beans but are two to three
times larger than mung beans. Different coloured seeds, including dark red,
green, straw coloured, black-orange, and mottled seeds are known. The most
widely occurring seeds are of dark red colour. The round seeds have a hilum
(seed scar) with a protruding ridge on the side.
The ripe seeds contain 25 percent protein on DM basis and are highly
nutritious. The dry pods split open and scatter the seeds, so harvest the pods
after the seeds are ripe but before they shatter. Little has been studied about
Adzuki bean (Lee and Hong, 2000).

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR

CULTIVATION
Adzuki bean performs best in
subtropical and warm temperate
climates. It requires average
temperatures of 15–30 °C for
optimal growth. It tolerates high
temperatures but is sensitive to
frost. In the tropics it is more
© CIAT/Daniel Debouck

suitable for higher altitudes.

Adzuki bean grows in areas
with average annual rainfall of
500–1 750 mm. It is a quantitative
short-day plant but day-neutral Photo 2.5.1 Seeds of adzuki bean [Vigna angularis (Willd.)
cultivars exist. Adzuki bean can Ohwi & H. Ohashi]
24 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

be grown on a wide range of soils (pH 5–7.5), provided they are well drained
(Jansen, 2006a).
The authors have no knowledge of any study on the nutritive value of
Adzuki bean by-products in animals. It is an area for further research.

SUMMARY
Adzuki bean is a highly nutritious food (25 percent protein, DM basis) for
millions of people in East Asia. Research on feeding Adzuki bean and its
by-products in livestock is required.
 25

2.6 Mung bean

COMMON NAMES
Celera bean, golden gram, green gram, Jerusalem pea, moong bean (English);
ambérique verte, haricot mungo (French); frijol mungo, judía mungo, poroto
chino (Spanish); feijão-da-china, feijão-mungo (Portuguese); mungboon
(Dutch); Mungbohne, Jerusalembohne (German); kacang hijau (Indonesian);
kacang ijo (Javanese); fagiolo indiano verde, fagiolo mungo verde (Italian);
monggo, munggo (Tagalog).

DISTRIBUTION
Mung bean [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek] has been grown in India since
ancient times., It is now widely grown in south-east Asia, Africa, South
America and Australia. It was apparently grown in the United States of
America as early as 1835 as the Chickasaw pea (DAF&F, 2010).

DESCRIPTION
Mung bean is a fast-growing, warm-season legume. It is an annual crop,
cultivated mostly in rotation with cereals. It is an erect plant which is highly
branched and is about 60 to 76 cm tall. A bush or trailing plant that produces
approximately 7.5 cm long pods containing about a dozen small green or
gold-coloured seeds. It reaches maturity very quickly under tropical and
sub-tropical conditions. Mung bean roots are deep rooted just like the roots
of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.], and leaves are trifoliate like other
legumes. The pale yellow flowers are borne in clusters of 12–15 near the top
of the plant.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR

CULTIVATION
The optimal temperature for
mung bean growth is between
28 and 30°C. It can not
withstand a temperature below
15 °C. It can be sown during
summer and autumn. It does
not require large amounts of
water (600–1 000 mm rainfall/
year) and is tolerant to drought.
It is sensitive to waterlogging.
High moisture at maturity tends
© NDDB

to spoil the seeds, which may

sprout before being harvested. Photo 2.6.1 Seeds of mung bean [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek]
26 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

The mung bean grows on a wide range of soils but prefers well-drained loams
or sandy loams, with a pH ranging from 5 to 8. It is somewhat tolerant to
saline soils (Mogotsi, 2006b).

PRODUCTION OF SEEDS
India is the largest producer of mung bean and accounts for 54 percent of
world production and 65 percent of world hectarege. In India, mung bean is
grown on about 3.70 million ha with annual production of 1.57 million tonne
(Sharma et al., 2011). China produces large amounts of mung beans, some
19 percent of its legume production. Thailand is the main exporter and its
production increased by 22 percent between 1980 and 2000 (Lambrides and
Godwin, 2006). Though it is produced in many African countries, mung bean
is not a major crop there (Mogotsi, 2006b).
The nutritive value of mung bean lies in its high protein content and protein
digestibility. Mung beans contain approximately 25–28 percent protein, 1.0
percent ether extract, 3.5–4.5 percent fibre, 4.5–5.5 percent ash and 62–65
percent carbohydrates on DM basis.

MUNG BEAN AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

Mung bean bran
Mung bean bran (called chuni in many Asian countries, including India) is a
by-product of mung bean processing, and is the the residual by-product,
containing broken pieces of endosperm including germ and a portion of
husk. Mung bean bran is a good source of protein (19.2 percent, DM basis).
Mung bean chuni can be included at 50 percent of the concentrates offered to
buffaloes fed on a rice straw diet. It met maintenance requirements without
any adverse effect on nutrient utilization (Krishna et al., 2002).

Mung bean meal

Another by-product (mung bean meal), obtained during manufacturing of
mung bean vermicelli, can be used as animal feed. The mung bean meal contains
11–23 percent crude protein, 0.4–1.8 percent ether extract, 13–36 percent crude
fibre, 0.30–0.68 percent calcium and 0.17–0.39 percent phosphorus on DM
basis, depending on the mung bean material (Sitthigripong and Alcantara, 1998).

Mung bean hull

Mung bean hull is the outer seed coat covering and is used as livestock feed. It
is characterized by a moderate level of crude protein (12 percent, DM basis)
and crude fibre (19 percent, DM basis) which makes it suitable for inclusion
in diets of ruminants.

Mung bean forage

Mung bean is sometimes grown for fodder, to be used as hay, straw or silage
(Mogotsi, 2006b). It is particularly valued as early forage as it out-competes
Beans: Mung bean 27

Table 2.6.1 Chemical composition of mung bean and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Parameter Seeds Straw chuni

Crude protein 19.5–29.4 8.7–11.6 19.2

Ether extract 0.2–3.7 2.3–2.4 2.2
Crude fibre 4.3–12.4 26.6–29.9 26.2
NDF 15.6 63.5 43.5
ADF 6.6–10.3 32.0–47.2 26.4
Lignin 4.8 4.3
Ash 0.9–14.0 6.1–12.1 4.8
Calcium 0.08–0.47 2.7 0.4
Phosphorus 0.36–0.62 0.2 0.3
Notes: DM (as fed) is 90.0 percent for seeds, 88.2 percent for straw and 95.3 percent for chuni.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).

other summer growing legumes such as cowpea or velvet bean [Mucuna

pruriens (L.) DC.] in their early stages (Lambrides and Godwin, 2006). Mung
bean forage yields range from 0.64 tonne/ha of green matter under unfertilized
conditions to about 1.8 tonne/ha with the addition of fertilizer (FAO, 2012).
Fresh mung bean forage has a moderate (13 percent, DM basis) to high (21
percent, DM basis) protein content. Garg et al. (2004) reported that mung
bean forage can be incorporated up to 100 percent in the ration of sheep to
maintain the adult sheep satisfactorily without any adverse effect.

Mung bean crop residue (straw)

Like other legume straws, mung bean straw is higher in protein (9–12 percent,
DM basis) than cereal straws (Table 2.6.1). They are mixed with rice straw
and wheat straw and fed to sheep and goats in the highlands of Afghanistan
(Fitzherbert, 2007). Mung bean straw was found to be palatable to sheep and
goat, with no deleterious effects on animal health. Dry matter digestibility of
mung bean straw (64 percent) fed to ewes ad libitum was similar to that of
the straws of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)
and cowpea and higher than that of pigeon pea straw (54 percent). Organic
matter digestibilities were reported as 56 and 61 percent in sheep and goats,
respectively (Khatik, Vaishnava and Gupta, 2007). Feeding ewes with mung
bean straw increased overall DM intake from 12.6 to 18.9 g/kg live weight
(LW)/day (McMeniman, Elliott and Ash, 1988).

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Various anti-nutritional factors such as trypsin inhibitors, chymotrypsin
inhibitor, tannins and lectins are present in mung bean. The level of anti-
nutritional factors varies depending upon the type of beans. Various processing
methods such as soaking and cooking can be used to reduce the effect of these
anti-nutritional factors (Lambrides and Godwin, 2006; Mogotsi, 2006b).
28 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

FEEDING OF SEED AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS

Cattle
A study conducted by Zahera, Permana and Despal (2015) in Indonesia showed
that mung bean fodder (produced in green house) had high digestibility and
fermentability, indicating potential fodder for dairy cows. Supplementation of
mung bean fodder increased nutrient intake.

Pigs
Mung bean meal has been tested in pig diets (purebred large white barrows)
with satisfactory results; it could replace up to 75 percent of the rice bran
in pig diets, with older pigs benefiting the most. Higher inclusion rates
resulted in higher intakes but were detrimental to the feed conversion ratio
(Sitthigripong, 1996). Amino acid supplementation failed to make diets based
on this product as efficient as a maize-soybean-meal-based diet (Sitthigripong
and Alcantara, 1998). Mung bean chuni was included at 15 percent level in the
rations of finisher crossbred pigs (Ravi, Rao and Yedukondalu, 2005). Mung
bean chuni can be included up to 7.5 percent without adverse effect in maize-
soybean meal-based diet of nursery pig (Rungcharoen et al., 2010).

Poultry
Mung bean has a higher energy value than many other legume seeds (Wiryawan
et al., 1995). The supplementation of broiler ration with 100 g mung bean
during the starting to finishing period (15 to 35 days old) and during the
finishing period (28 to 35 days old) had no effect on final weight, weight
gain, feed intake, feed cost per kilogram broiler produced, feed efficiency and
production efficiency of broiler (Binalay, 2012).

Broilers. Singh et al. (2013) observed that feeding of sprouted mung bean (10
g/bird/day) may provide protection in broiler chickens against coccidiosis-
induced alteration in growth, haematological and parasitological parameters.
Rungcharoen et al. (2010) conducted a series of experiments to determine
the apparent metabolizable energy of mung bean waste (mung bean hull) in
broilers and effects of its inclusion in broiler diets on growth performance
and nutrient digestibility. This study recommended that the inclusion of mung
bean hull in the broiler diets should be less than 5 percent to achieve optimum
growth performance and nutrient digestibility of broilers.

Layers. Raw mung beans introduced at levels of 15 percent or 30 percent in the

diet did not reduce egg production or feed efficiency. However, egg production
was significantly depressed at a 45 percent inclusion level. Pelleting diets had
no effect at the 15 percent or 30 percent inclusion rate, but had a positive effect
on production at the 45 percent level (Robinson and Singh, 2001). In all cases
body weight was slightly depressed by the inclusion of mung beans in the diet.
The general recommendation is to use mung beans at levels up to 30 percent in
Beans: Mung bean 29

layer diets, provided that the diet is properly balanced, especially with amino
acids. Vinh, Tuan and Hang (2013) conduced experiments to evaluate the effect
of mung bean hulls in maize-based diets for pre-laying (10–19 weeks of age)
and laying (20–38 week-old) performance of Ri × Luong Phuong hens. The
studies found that inclusion of 14 and 18 percent mung bean hulls in the diet
at pre-laying stage were not affected from 10 to 16 weeks, but were reduced
by 12 and 26 percent during the period from 16 to 20 weeks (Vinh, Tuan and
Hang, 2013). It was reported that inclusion of 14 or 18 percent mung bean
hulls in the laying period did not affect egg production or egg quality.

SUMMARY
Mung bean is widely grown in tropical and temperate climates. Mung bean
bran (chuni) can be included at up to 50 percent of the concentrates for
buffaloes fed cereal-straw-based diets. It can be included at up to 15 percent
in crossbred pigs finisher diet. Mung bean fodder can be fed solely to sheep
without any adverse effect. It is recommended to use mung beans up to 30
percent in layer diets, provided that the diet is properly balanced. To achieve
optimum growth and nutrient digestibility, it is advisable to use a maximum
of 5 percent mung bean hulls in broiler diet.
 31

2.7 Mungo bean

COMMON NAMES
Black gram, black lentil, black matpe bean, mungo bean, urd bean, urad
bean (English); ambérique, haricot urd (French); feijão-da-India, feijão-
preto (Portuguese); frijol mungo, fréjol negro, frijol negro, lenteja negra, urd
(Spanish); Urdbohne, Linsenbohne (German); fagiolo indiano nero, fagiolo
mungo nero (Italian); mchooko mweusi (Swahili).

DISTRIBUTION
Mungo bean [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper] was domesticated in central Asia
(India) and is now widely grown in many tropical areas of Asia, Africa and
Madagascar. It is cultivated in the United States of America and in Australia as
a fodder crop (Jansen, 2006b). Archaeological studies have shown that it was
cultivated in India as far back as 2 200 BC.

DESCRIPTION
Mungo bean is an erect, sub-erect or trailing, densely hairy, annual herb. The
tap root produces a branched root system with smooth, rounded nodules. The
pods are narrow, cylindrical and up to 6 cm long. The plant grows to 30–100
cm, with large hairy leaves and 4–6-cm long seed pods (Nitin, Ifthekar and
Mumtaz, 2012). The leaves are trifoliate with ovate leaflets, 4–10 cm long and
2–7 cm wide. The inflorescence is borne at the extremity of a long (up to 18
cm) peduncle and bears yellow, small, papilionaceous flowers. The fruit is a
cylindrical, erect pod, 4–7 cm long x 0.5 cm broad. The pod is hairy and has a
short hooked beak. It contains 4–10 ellipsoid black or mottled seeds (Ecocrop,
2011). Mungo bean is easily distinguished from mung bean (Vigna radiata L.)
by its much shorter, stout, very hairy pods and larger oblong seeds that vary
in colour from blackish to olive green.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR

CULTIVATION
Mungo bean grows optimally at
temperatures ranging from 25
to 35 °C and annual rainfall of
600–1 000 mm. It cannot tolerate
wet tropical climates but it can
be grown during the dry period
in high rainfall areas. Rich black
vertisols or loamy soils, well-
© NDDB

drained soils with a pH 6–7 are

more suitable for mungo bean Photo 2.7.1 Seeds of mungo bean [Vigna mungo (L.)
cultivation (Baligar and Fageria, Hepper]
32 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

2007). However, it can also withstand acidic soils (down to pH 4.5) if lime and
gypsum are added to the soil (Baligar and Fageria, 2007). It is drought-tolerant
and thus suitable for semi-arid areas. It is sensitive to saline and alkaline soils
(Sharma et al., 2011).

SEED PRODUCTION
India is the largest producer and consumer of mungo bean in the world. It is
grown on about 3.24 million ha with annual production of 1.52 million tonne
(Sharma et al., 2011). Other producing countries are Myanmar, Thailand,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Japan, Bangladesh, Canada, The Islamic Republic of Iran,
Greece and East African countries.

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Mungo bean seeds contain trypsin inhibitors and condensed tannins,
sometimes in larger amounts than chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.), broad beans
(Vicia faba L.) or peas (Pisum sativum L.). This could limit their use if they are
not processed before feeding to monogastric species. However, experimental
results are inconsistent. The seeds are free from glucosides (Wiryawan, Miller
and Holmes, 1997).

MUNGO BEAN SEED AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

Mungo bean seeds
Mungo bean seeds contain approximately 25–28 percent protein, 1.0–1.5
percent ether extract, 3.5–4.5 percent fibre, 4.5–5.5 percent ash and 62–65
percent carbohydrates on dry weight basis (Sharma et al., 2011).

Mungo bean chuni

Chuni is the by-product of mungo beanmungo beanmungo bean processing,
and contains broken pieces of endosperm including germ and a portion of
husk, and is called chuni in India. The crude protein value of chuni ranges
from 15 to 26 percent (DM basis), based on amounts of seed coats and
endosperm fractions (Islam, Chowdhury and Alam, 1997). It is a potential
feed resource and large quantities are available in India and other Southern
Asian countries where mungo bean is a popular food (Reddy et al., 2000).
Swain et al. (2015) observed that mungo bean/mungo bean chuni is the best in
terms of available protein among the chunies studied of various pulses namely
mung bean, chickpea and pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Huth].

Mungo bean forage

Mungo bean is also grown for forage and hay. Its crop residues are an
important feed for livestock in some regions of India (Sandeep et al., 2000).
Fodder is derived mainly from the leaves and stems, but seeds, pods and pod
husks are also used. It is usually fed to cattle as a fodder but the plant, the seeds
and the by-products are also consumed by other livestock species (Fuller,
Beans: Mungo bean 33

Table 2.7.1 Chemical composition of mungo bean and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Parameter Seeds Straw Pods Husk Chuni

Crude protein 20.8–26.8 8.9–17.2 9.0 18.2 20.7

Ether extract 09.9–2.2 0.4–2.8 2.3 1.4 2.2
Crude fibre 3.7–14.5 28.6 29.9 20.3 13.1
NDF 14.2–22.4 54.5–56.9 48.2
ADF 5.2–8.4 31.9–36.4 37.4
Lignin 0.1–0.5 4.6 9.6 3.0
Ash 3.7–7.4 8.8–12.6 12.2 5.5 11.7
Calcium 0.10–0.43 1.74 2.71 0.51
Phosphorus 0.39–0.65 0.16 0.19 0.26
Notes: DM (as fed) is 86.6–89.6 percent for seeds, 90.0 percent for straw and 93.1 percent for chuni.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Chuni: residues containing broken pieces of endosperm including germ and a portion of husk.
Husk: outer covering of grain or seed, especially when dry.
Source: Feedipedia (2016); Arulnathan, Murugan and Balakrishnan (2013).

2004). Fresh bean forage is rich in protein (18–19 percent, DM basis) and fibre
(crude fibre 25–27 percent, DM basis; NDF 45 percent, DM basis).
In India, mungo bean yields up to 15.6 tonne green fodder/ha and 340–1500
kg dry seeds/ha (Ecocrop, 2011). In Bangladesh, mungo bean is also grown as
a pasture feed along with other legumes such as grass pea (Lathyrus sativus
L.) in a no-tillage system. It is then rotationally grazed by cattle which should
be offered straw to prevent diarrhoea or bloat (Islam, Sarker and Islam,
1995). In Bangladesh, some dairy cattle feeding systems are based on legume
pastures, combining mungo bean and grass pea herbage with copra-meal-
based concentrates. Supplementing such diets with straw (2.5 kg/head/day)
did not change DMI but increased milk production (up to 8.64 litre/day) and
was more profitable (Islam, Sarker and Islam, 1995).

Mungo bean crop residue (straw)

Mungo bean straw and haulms have a variable composition, depending on the
proportion of stems, leaves, and pods. Reported protein values range from 8.9
to 17.2 percent, DM basis and NDF values range from 54 to 57 percent, DM
basis (Reddy, 1997), with low starch content (4.5 percent, DM basis) (Singh et
al., 2002, Table 2.7.1). The crude protein of mungo bean straw was found to be
more degradable than that of leucaena [Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit]
leaves (Singh et al., 2002). Dry matter is also highly rumen-degradable (Reddy,
1997). OM digestibility of the roughage was good (68 percent), and ME
(9.1 MJ/kg DM) was higher than that of rice straw and groundnut (Arachis
hypogaea L.) straw (Krishnamoorthy et al., 1995).
Hossain et al. (2015) observed that the supplementation of straw-based
diets with different levels of mungo bean hay (0, 106, 212 and 318 g DM)
improves feed intake, nutrient digestibility and live weight gain of indigenous
bull calves (age 2–3 years and average 83.4 kg live weight). However, use
of mungo bean straw as a sole feed ad libitum did not meet the nutritional
34 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

requirements (and particularly the protein requirement) of Murrah buffalo

heifers (Sanjiv and Garg, 1995). Mungo bean straw offered to sheep at 60
percent of the diet supported growth in sheep (average live-weight gain of
60–62 g/h/day), and was equivalent to wheat straw in terms of feed efficiency
and feeding cost (Jadhav and Deshmukh, 2001). Effect of feeding complete
rations comprising sorghum straw, maize stover, pigeon pea straw and mungo
bean straw as roughage sources showed that DMI (kg/day) was similar in all
groups. Venkateswarlu, Srinivas kumar and Narendranath (2013) observed
that feeding complete ration (mungo bean straw and concentrates 60:40) to
buffalo bulls had no effect on DMI, when compared with complete ration
based on other roughages (sorghum straw, maize stover. However, the
digestibility coefficients of DM, OM, CP, EE, CF, NDF, ADF, cellulose and
hemi-cellulose were significantly (P<0.01) lower in buffalo bulls fed mungo
bean in comparison with other groups (Venkateswarlu, Srinivas kumar and
Narendranath, 2013).

Mungo bean husk

In India, mungo bean husk (outer covering of grain or seed) is available in
substantial quantity, as this pulse is grown as a cash crop in vast areas of the
country. It contains 18.2 percent CP, 1.4 percent EE, 20.3 percent of 54.6
percent NFE and 5.5 percent total ash. Its fibre contains 48.2 percent NDF,
37.4 percent ADF, 10.8 percent hemicellulose, 26.6 percent cellulose and 9.6
percent lignin. It also contains 0.51 percent CA, 0.26 percent P, and 0.014
percent Mg. The Cu, Zn, Co and Mn levels were 13.16 ppm CU, 37.47 ppm
ZN, 0.97 ppm CO and 53.75 ppm MN. It is considered that carbohydrate
could be the main component bound by tannin in mungo bean husk, which
is protected from rumen fermentation but digested in the small intestine
(Sreerangaraju, Krishnamoorthy and Kailasb, 2000). In Bangladesh, mungo
bean is a valuable supplement, resulting in greater protein intake and higher
weight gain (57 vs 31 g/day in goats fed grass alone) (Islam, Chowdhury and
Alam, 1997).

FEEDING OF SEED AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS

Cattle
Dey, De and Gangopadhyay (2016) observed that partial (50 percent) or
complete replacement of wheat bran with mungo bean foliage improved daily
feed intake, fibre digestibility and milk production in crossbred lactating
cows. Reddy et al. (2000) recommended inclusion of up to 40 percent of chuni
in the concentrate diets of male buffaloes, fed a rice-straw-based diet, with no
adverse effect on OM, DM and CP digestibilities and with a positive effect
on fibre digestibility. At a 40 percent level, the degradability of DM was 55.6
percent and CP was 71.6 percent (Reddy et al., 2002).
Beans: Mungo bean 35

Pigs
The inclusion of mungo bean chuni at the 15 percent level in the rations of
growing and finishing crossbred barrows did not affect growth rate or carcass
characteristics (Ravi et al., 1999).

Poultry
Mungo bean chuni could partially replace fish meal and maize grain in layer
diets. However, diets containing 5 or 20 percent chuni resulted in lower
(but not significantly different) egg production, digestibility and N and Ca
retention (Khulbe and Singh, 1973).

SUMMARY
India is the largest producer and consumer of mungo bean in the world.
Therefore a large quantity of its by-products such as chuni, husk, forages,
crop residues and hay are available for feeding to livestock. About 40 percent
of concentrates can be replaced with chuni in the diet of male buffaloes. The
inclusion of mungo bean chuni up to the 15 percent level is recommended
for pig diets, without affecting growth and carcass characteristics. Feeding
mungo bean forage (50 or 100 percent of roughage) improved feed intake,
fibre digestibility and milk production in lactating cows.
 37

2.8 Rice bean

COMMON NAMES
Climbing mountain bean, mambi bean, oriental bean, red bean, rice bean
(English); haricot riz (French); feijão-arroz (Portuguese); fríjol mambé, fríjol
rojo, frijol de arroz (Spanish); Reisbonhne (German); kacang uci (Indonesian).

DISTRIBUTION
Rice bean’s [Vigna umbellata (Thunb.) Ohwi & H. Ohashi] distribution
pattern indicates great adaptive polymorphism for diverse environments, with
its distribution ranging from humid tropical to sub-tropical, to sub-temperate
climate. The presumed centre of domestication is Indo-China (Tomooka et
al., 2011). It is thought to be derived from the wild form [V. umbellata var.
gracilis (Prain) Maréchal, Mascherpa & Stainier], with which it cross-fertilizes,
and which is distributed from Southern China through the north of Viet Nam,
Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Thailand into Myanmar and India
(Tomooka et al., 1991).

DESCRIPTION
Rice bean is an annual legume with an erect to semi-erect vine that may grow
to more than 3 m in height. It shows profuse branching. Leaves are tri-foliate
with entire, 6–9 cm long leaflets. Flowers are conspicuously bright yellow
and borne in clusters. Research in India has shown that rice bean has very
high growth efficiency and low respiratory loss of seed reserves (Sastrapradja
and Sutarno, 1977). Rice bean is a diploid (2n=22) and there is some evidence
of natural out-crossing. It has elongated, slightly curved and beaked seeds of
variable size and colour with prominent hilum.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR

CULTIVATION
Rice bean can be grown in
diverse environments due to its
wide adaptation. A temperature
range of 25–35 ºC and average
rainfall of 1 000–1 500 mm per
annum are optimal for healthy
vegetative growth and proper
© CIAT/Daniel Debouck

pod development. Most varieties

are photoperiod-sensitive, tend
to be late in flowering, and pro-
duce vigorous vegetative growth
when grown under conditions Photo 2.8.1 Seeds of rice bean [Vigna umbellata (Thunb.) Ohwi
of ample water and warm tem- & H. Ohashi]
 38 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

perature in the subtropics. Rice

bean is best adapted to drought-
prone sloping areas and flat
rainfed areas. Rice bean can be
grown in different types of soil
including grey, black, yellow or
cream coloured soils. However,
red soil, which is moderate in
fertility, is considered best for
rice bean cultivation (Khanal
and Poudel, 2008). Though rice
bean can better tolerate harsh
© NDDB

conditions (including drought,

Photo 2.8.2 Plants of rice bean [Vigna umbellata (Thunb.) waterlogging and acid soils), it
Ohwi & H. Ohashi] remains an underutilized legume
and there is no breeding pro-
gramme to improve this crop. Farmers must rely on landraces rather than on
commercial cultivars (Joshi et al., 2008).

RICE BEAN AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

Rice bean seeds
Rice bean seed is rich in protein (18–25 percent, DM basis), low in fibre (4
percent, DM basis) and fat (2 percent, DM basis) (Table 2.8.1). It is rich in
lysine (more than 6 percent of the protein) but poor in sulphur-containing
amino acids.
Rice bean is useful for livestock feeding. In India, it is fed to buffalo calves
and sheep to provide energy. Rice beans can replace 50 percent each of cereals
and de-oiled cake in the concentrate mixture offered to buffalo calves (Ahuja,
Kakkar and Gupta, 2001). In sheep, replacing 50 percent of the metabolizable
energy from oat hay by rice bean seeds had no deleterious effect on sheep N
balance, which remained positive (Krishna et al., 1989).

Rice bean forage

The crop residue from rice bean is a valuable and palatable fodder which
is known to increase milk production. It has been promoted in India as a
cattle fodder (Mukherjee, Roquib and Chatterjee, 1980), and has also been
suggested as a crop with potential for use as a feed for livestock production.
This might lead to an increased market for rice bean, but could also lead to
the crop being stigmatized as `livestock fodder´. Rice bean, despite its grain
yield potential, comparable to major pulse crops, and excellent nutritional
qualities, has failed to emerge as an important pulse crop in India. Rice bean
forage is relatively rich in protein (17–23 percent, DM basis), and minerals (10
percent, DM in the fresh forage), particularly in Ca (up to 2 percent in DM
in the fresh forage).
Beans: Rice bean 39

Table 2.8.1 Chemical composition of rice bean and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Parameter Seeds Hay Straw

Crude protein 18.1–25.2 15.6 13.6

Ether extract 0.7–4.2 4.6 1.4
Crude fibre 2.2–7.4 30.2 26.3
NDF 54.6 51.2
ADF 39.2 30.7
Ash 3.8–4.9 9.9 22.2
Calcium 0.26–0.67 1.31 2.91
Phosphorus 0.21–0.39 0.26 0.12
Notes: DM (as fed) for seeds is 81.0–95.0 percent.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).

Due to high fodder production potential (35 tonne/ha, fresh basis), rice
bean is now attracting attention as a leguminous fodder crop in India. In
Bengal (India), fodder yields were reported to range from 5–7 tonne DM/ha in
May and June, to 8–9 tonne DM/ha in November and December. In India, rice
bean grown with Nigeria grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin.) yielded 7.6
tonne DM/ha after the application of 20 kg N/ha (Chatterjee and Dana, 1977).
In Pakistan, rice bean grown with sorghum (50:50 mix.) yielded up to 12
tonne DM/ha (Ayub et al., 2004). However, lower yield (5–6 tonne DM/ha)
have been reported in Myanmar (Tin Maung Aye, 2001), and in the sub-humid
Pothwar plateau of Pakistan (2.9 tonne DM/ha; Qamar et al., 2014).
An experiment conducted by Singh, Saha and Singh (2000) revealed that ad
libitum feeding of rice bean forage and sorghum sudan green fodder mixture
(46:54 fresh basis) could support a growth of 456 g/day in crossbred calves
(age 22–23 months). Similarly, Joshi et al. (2008) also observed that farmers
in Nepal prefer rice bean fodder for livestock feeding due to its softness and
palatability.

Rice bean crop residue (straw)

Rice bean straw contains 16 percent protein (DM basis) and large amounts
of minerals (more than 20 percent, DM basis). Chaudhuri, Gupta and Singh
(1980) observed that rice bean straw had a low OM digestibility, ranging from
31 to 47 percent, and recommended to supplement it with energy-rich feed
materials, such as cereal grains or bran.

Rice bean hay

Rice bean hay is generally used as a protein source (Table 2.7.1) to supplement
poor quality roughage-based diets in ruminants. In an experiment with rice
bean hay in India, bullocks consumed it hesitantly at first, but within a few
days were accustomed to it, and DM consumption increased, indicating
that the hay was palatable (Gupta, Singh and Chatterjee, 1981). Holstein
×Friesian crossbred dairy cows receiving rice bean hay mixed with Ruzi grass
40 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

[Urochloa ruziziensis (R. Germ. & C.M. Evrard) Crins] tended to have higher
digestibility of DM, OM and CP, higher milk yield and fat corrected milk
(Wanapat et al., 2012). Foiklang, Wanapat and Toburan (2010) concluded that
rice bean hay has potential to be used as protein source in high quality feed
blocks and its feeding resulted in improved rumen fermentation efficiency and
digestibility in swamp buffaloes.

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Rice bean contains phytic acid, polyphenol, tannins, trypsin inhibitors, other
anti-nutrients, and flatus-producing oligosaccharides. However, the contents
of all these compounds are lower than in many comparable pulses. Rice bean
forage contains variable amounts of condensed tannins (0.1–2.8 percent, DM
basis) (Chanthakhoun and Wanapat, 2010; Wanapat et al., 2012). Saikia, Sarkar
and Borua (1999) reported that rice bean contains trypsin inhibiting contents
of 2456 to 2534 TIU/g, phytic acid levels of 1976 to 2170 mg/100 g and tannins
of 513 to 572 mg/100 g. Cooking, namely 15 min. pressure cooking and 50
min. boiling showed a considerable decrease in anti-nutritional factors.

FEEDING OF RICE BEAN AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS

Cattle
Thang, Sanh and Wiktorsson (2008) observed higher daily weight gain (609
g/day), better feed efficiency and reduced feeding cost in growing crossbred
heifers fed on a mixture of cassava hay and rice bean hay (3:1 ratio) replaced
with 60 percent of concentrate in a forage-based diet (Pennisetum purpureum
Schumach. + urea-treated rice straw). Supplementation of rice bean hay at
600 g DM/head/day was beneficial for swamp buffaloes fed with rice straw
as a basal roughage, as it resulted in increased DMI, reduced protozoal and
methane gas production in the rumen, increased N retention as well as better
efficiency of rumen microbial protein synthesis (Chanthakhoun et al., 2011).
Chanthakhoun and Wanapat (2010) also reported that supplementation of
rice bean hay in the diet of buffalo increases cellulolytic rumen bacteria, thus
improving the utilization of high fibre content feeds.

Goats
Das (2002) reported that local goats fed with grass and rice bean hay (15
percent of diet DM) did not increase grass intake, while total DMI and
nutrient digestibility were increased. Increasing the level of rice bean level
above 15 percent had no further effect on digestibility.

Poultry
Rice beans are rich in protein but contain trypsin inhibitors and other anti-
nutritional factors that limit their use in poultry feeding. Raw rice beans
fed to broilers at 20 or 40 percent of the diet decreased growth. However,
roasted rice beans gave better results and were included at 40 percent without
Beans: Rice bean 41

hampering growth, but weight gain was lower than that with the control diet
(Gupta, Yadav and Gupta, 1992).

SUMMARY
Rice bean is a useful livestock feed. It can replace 50 percent of concentrates
in the ration of buffalo calves and sheep. Supplementation of rice bean hay
at 600 g DM/head/day resulted in increased dry matter intake, and reduced
protozoal and methane production in rumen of swamp buffaloes. For goats,
the level of rice bean hay should not be more than 15 percent of diet dry
matter. Raw rice bean should not be fed to poultry, although roasted rice
bean can be included at up to 20 percent of the diet.
 43

2.9 Moth bean

COMMON NAMES
Dew bean, haricot mat, Indian moth bean, mat bean, mattenbohne, math,
moth, moth bean, matki, or Turkish gram.

DISTRIBUTION
The moth bean [Vigna aconitifolia (Jacq.) Maréchal] is probably a native of India,
Pakistan and Myanmar, where it grows wild and appears to have been recently
domesticated. It is a drought resistant legume, commonly grown in arid and
semi-arid regions of India and Pakistan (Maréchal, Mascherpa and Stainer, 1978).

DESCRIPTION
Moth bean is one of the underutilized legumes of the tropics and sub-tropics,
grown mostly in dryland agriculture. It is a herbaceous creeping annual which
grows to approximately 40 cm high. On account of its mat-like spreading
habit, it has been given the name of mat bean in some parts of the world,
particularly in the United States of America. Yellow flowers on its hairy and
densely packed branches develop into yellow-brown pods, 2 to 3 inches in
length.
The seeds contain approximately 22–24 percent protein, DM basis (Table
2.9.1). The pods, sprouts and protein rich seeds of this crop are commonly
consumed in India. Due to its drought resistant qualities, its ability to combat
soil erosion and its high protein content, moth bean could play a more
significant role as a food source in the future. It has been suggested that its
suitability as a grain legume in semi-arid Africa should be further investigated.
Moth bean is cultivated on
about 1.5 million ha, mainly on
arid, sandy tracts of Rajasthan,
India’s driest state. It is found
growing wild from the Himalayas
to Sri Lanka, from sea level to
1 500 masl. It is a well-established
commercial crop on the Indian
subcontinent. Rajasthan has 85
percent of the total area and 55
percent of the total production
of the country (Om and Singh,
2015). Uttar Pradesh, Punjab,
© NDDB

Haryana and Madhya pradesh

are the other states where moth Photo 2.9.1 Seeds of moth bean [Vigna aconitifolia (Jacq.)
bean is grown on marginal lands. Maréchal]
44 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Table 2.9.1 Chemical composition of moth bean and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Parameter Seeds Haulm Hay Pods

Crude protein 26.6 9.6 8.9–17.2 9.6

Ether extract 0.6 2.9 1.7–1.9 2.9
Crude fibre 5.3 19.4 26.8–29.4 19.4
Ash 5.6 14.1 12.0–14.4 14.4
Calcium 0.35 3.0 2.0–2.3 2.01
Phosphorus 0.38 0.24 0.12–0.18 0.25
Notes: DM (as fed) for hay is 86.2 percent.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR CULTIVATION

The moth bean is the most drought-tolerant pulse crop grown in India. Moth
bean can grow well in hot climates with 500–750 mm of annual rainfall; with
as little as 50–60 mm rainfall, as three to four showers during the growing
period, a good yield can be obtained. It can be successfully cultivated on
well drained sandy plains and sand dunes with poor organic matter and poor
fertility in Northern-western mid regions of lndia. Moth bean, with its deep
and fast penetrating root system, can survive up to 30–40 days in open fields,
experiencing fast depletion of soil moisture, with air temperature peaking to
more than 35 ºC.

MOTH BEAN AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

The moth bean shows good promise for supplying quality forage under arid
and semi-arid conditions. Fields of moth bean make valuable pastures and
have been cultivated for this purpose in India, California and Texas. At the
end of the hot season, when other crops have succumbed to the heat, the
leaves and vines are still green – even after the seeds and pods are ripe – and
they remain succulent until the arrival of cold weather. They are palatable
and are relished by livestock. Yields of over 60 tonne/ha of green forage have
been achieved.

Moth bean hay

Moth bean hay is readily eaten by livestock and has a feeding value almost
equal to that of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay. The stems are small and the
leaves do not easily fall off when the plant is dried.

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Various anti-nutritional factors, such as phytic acid, saponin and trypsin
inhibitor, are present in moth bean. Soaking the seeds in plain water and
mineral salt solution for 12 hours decreased phytic acid by up to 50 percent,
whereas sprouting for 60 hours had the most pronounced saponin lowering
effect (44–66 percent). The processing methods involving heat treatment
almost eliminated trypsin inhibitor activity, while soaking and germination
partly removed the activity of the trypsin (Khokhar and Chuhan, 1986).
Beans: Moth bean 45

To the best of the author’s knowledge, little information is available about

effects of feeding moth bean and its by-products.

SUMMARY
Moth bean fodder is palatable, and relished by livestock. Green forage can
be obtained at up to 60 tonne/ha, which provides quality fodder to livestock
under arid and semi-arid conditions. Little information about effect of
feeding moth bean and its by-products is available. More research is required
to explore its potential use in animal feeding.
46 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

REFERENCES CITED IN CHAPTER 2

Achi, I., Adelanwa, M.A. & Ahmed, A.B. 2007. Performance of broiler chickens fed on lima
bean, groundnut and soybean diets. Scientific World Journal, 2(2): 13–16.
Adeparusi, E. O. 2001. Effect of processing on the nutrients and anti-nutrients of lima bean
(Phaseolus lunatus L.) flour. Nahrung, 45(2): 94–96.
DOI: 10.1002/1521-3803(20010401)45:2<94::AID-FOOD94>3.0.CO;2-E
Ahuja, A.K., Kakkar, V.K. & Gupta, B.K. 2001. Nutritional evaluation of rice bean in buffalo
calves. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 18(2): 172–175.
Ajayi, F. T. 2011. Effects of feeding ensiled mixtures of elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum)
with three grain legume plants on digestibility and nitrogen balance of West African Dwarf
goats. Livestock Science, 142(1): 80–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2011.06.020
Ajayi, F.T., Akande, S.R., Adegbite, A.A. & Idowu, B. 2009. Assessment of seven under-
utilized grain legume foliages as feed resources for ruminants. Livestock Research and Rural
Development, 21(9). Article #149. Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd21/9/ajay21149.htm
Ajayi, F.T., Funmi, O., Adewumi, A. & Sunday, D.E. 2012. Performance, haematology and
serum biochemistry of West African dwarf goats fed ensiled mixtures of elephant grass
(Pennisetum purpureum) with lima bean, African yam bean and pigeon pea. Kasetsart Journal
- Natural Science, 46(5): 694–702.
Available at: http://www.thaiscience.info/journals/Article/TKJN/10898227.pdf
Akande, K.E., Doma, U.D., Agu, H.O. & Adamu, H.M. 2010. Major anti-nutrients found in
plant protein sources: their effect on nutrition. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 9(8): 827–832.
DOI: 10.3923/pjn.2010.827.832
Akinmutimi, A.H., Aligwara, A.O. & Abasiekong, S.F. 2008. The effect of quantitative
replacement of soybean meal with cooked and toasted lima bean meal on growth performance
and carcass quality values of broiler finisher birds. International Journal of Poultry Science,
7(5): 487–490. DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2008.487.490
Aredo, T.A. & Musimba, N.K.R. 2003. Study on the chemical composition, intake and
digestibility of maize stover, teff straw and haricot bean haulms in Adami Tulu District,
Ethiopia. Kasetsart Journal - Natural Science, 37(4): 401–407.
Available at: http://kasetsartjournal.ku.ac.th/kuj_files/2008/A0804291416277315.pdf
Arija, I., Centeno, C., Viveros, A., Brenes, A., Marzo, F., Illera, J. C. & Silvan, G. 2006.
Nutritional evaluation of raw and extruded kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. var. pinto) in
chicken diets. Poultry Science, 85(4): 635–644.
Arulnathan, N., Murugan, M. & Balakrishnan, V. 2013. Proximate principles, fibre fraction and
mineral content of mungo bean husk (Vigna mungo). International Journal of Livestock Research,
3(3): 24–30. Available at: http://www.ejmanager.com/mnstemps/68/68-1371459439.pdf
Ayub, M., Tanveer, A., Nadeem, M.A. & Shah, S.M.A. 2004. Studies on the fodder yield and
quality of sorghum grown alone and in mixture with rice bean. Pakistan Journal of Life and
Social Sciences, 2(1): 46–48. Available at: http://pakjas.com.pk/papers/119.pdf
Baligar, V. C. & Fageria, N.K. 2007. Agronomy and physiology of tropical cover crops. Journal
of Plant Nutrition, 30(8): 1287–1339. DOI: 10.1080/01904160701554997
Ballhorn, D.J., Lieberei, R. & Ganzhorn, J.U. 2005. Plant cyanogenesis of Phaseolus lunatus
and its relevance for herbivore-plant interaction: the importance of quantitative data. Journal
of Chemical Ecology, 31(7): 1445–1473.
Beans: References cited in Chapter 2 47

Barnes, R.F., Nelson, C.J., Moore, K.J. & Collins, M. 2007. Forages: the science of grassland
agriculture. Volume II. Sixth edition. Wiley-Blackwell editors, USA.
Baudoin, J.P. 2006. Phaseolus lunatus L. Record from Protabase. Brink, M. & Belay, G.
(Editors). PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa/Ressources végétales de l’Afrique
tropicale), Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Binalay, J.P. 2012. Effect of ground mung bean on the performance of broiler. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, The Philippines.
Broughton, W.J., Hernandez, G., Blair, M., Beebe, S., Gepts, P. & Vanderleyden, J. 2003. Beans
(Phaseolus spp.) – model food legumes. Plant and Soil, 252: 55–128.
Buschinelli de Goes, R., Klein, K., Martinhago, L., de Oliveira, E., Silva Brabes, K., Menezes
Gressler, M., Yoshiraha, M., de Oliveira, R. & dos Santos, E. 2013. Common beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in the rations for cattle in feedlot. Agricultural Sciences, 4(12): 774–780.
DOI: 10.4236/as.2013.412106
Chanthakhoun, V. & Wanapat, M. 2010. Effect of legume (Phaseolus calcaratus) hay
supplementation on rumen cellulolytic bacterial populations in swamp buffaloes investigated
by the real-time PCR technique. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9(11): 1654–
1659. DOI:10.1016/j.livsci.2011.02.003
Chanthakhoun, V., Wanapat, M., Wachirapakorn, C. & Wanapat, S. 2011. Effect of legume
(Phaseolus calcaratus) hay supplementation on rumen micro-organisms, fermentation and nutrient
digestibility in swamp buffalo. Livestock Science, 140(1/3): 17–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2011.02.003
Chatterjee, B.N. & Dana, S. 1977. Rice bean (Vigna umbellata (Thumb.) Owhl and Ohashi.
Tropical Grain Legume Bulletin, No. 10, International Grain Legume Information Center.
Chaudhuri, A.B., Gupta, B.N. & Singh, R.P. 1980. Chemical composition and nutritive value
of rice bean straw. Indian Journal of Dairy Science, 33(4): 438–442.
Available at: http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/bitstream/1/58223/1/dcn21.pdf
CNC. 2004. Coproduits de fruits et légumes et coproduits de conserverie: fiche n° 24. Comité
National des Co-produits, Agence de l’environnement et de la maîtrise de l’énergie (ADEME),
Institut d’elevage, Paris (IDELE).
DAF&F (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries). 2010. Mung bean production
guideline. Republic of South Africa. Available at:
http://www.daff.gov.za/docs/Brochures/MbeanpGUDELINS.pdf. Accessed 2017-05-25.
Das, A. 2002. Effect of rice bean (Vigna umbellata Thumb) supplementation on utilization of
mixed jungle grass in goats. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 19(1): 47–50.
Dawo, M.I., Wilkinson, J.M. & Pilbeam, D.J. 2009. Interactions between plants in intercropped
maize and common bean. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 89: 41–48.
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.3408
Defang, H.F., Teguia, A., Awah-Ndukum, J., Kenfack, A., Ngoula, F. & Metuge, F. 2008.
Performance and carcass characteristics of broilers fed boiled cowpea (Vigna unguiculata
L Walp) and/or black common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) meal diets. African Journal of
Biotechnology, 7(9): 1351–1356. Available at: http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB
Dey, A., De, P.S. & Gangopadhyay, P.K. 2016. Mungo bean (Vigna Mungo L.) foliage
supplementation to crossbred cows: Effects on feed intake, nutrient digestibility and milk
production. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 30(2): 187–191.
DOI: 10.5713/ajas.16.0286
48 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Ecocrop. 2011. FAO Ecocrop database. Available at: http://ecocrop.fao.org/ecocrop/srv/en/home

Ecocrop. 2013. FAO Ecocrop database. Available at: http://ecocrop.fao.org/ecocrop/srv/en/home
Egli, I., Davidsson, L., Juillerat, M.-A., Barclay, D. & Hurrell, R. 2002.The influence of soaking
and germination on the phytase activity and phytic acid content of grains and seeds potentially
useful for complementary feeding. Journal of Food Science, 67: 3484–3488.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb09609.x
Emiola, I.A. & Ologhobo, A.D. 2006. Nutritional assessment of raw and differently processed
underutilized legume seed in broiler diet. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances,
5(2): 96–101.
Available at: http://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=javaa.2006.96.101
Emiola, A.I., Ologhobo, A.D. & Gous, R.M. 2007a. Influence of processing of mucuna
(Mucuna pruriens var utilis) and kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) on the performance and
nutrient utilization of broiler chickens. Journal of Poultry Science, 44(2): 168–174.
Emiola, I.A., Ologhobo, A.D. & Gous, R.M. 2007b. Performance and histological responses
of internal organs of broiler chickens fed raw, de-hulled, and aqueous and dry-heated kidney
bean meals. Poultry Science, 86(6): 1234–1240.
Emiola, I.A., Ologhobo, A.D., Adedeji, T.A., Oladunjoye, I.O. & Akanji, M.A. 2003.
Performance characteristics of broiler chicks fed kidney beans as replacement for two
conventional legumes. Moor Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(2): 236–241.
Available at: http://www.ajol.info/index.php/mjar/article/view/31782
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1994. Definition and
classification of commodities, 4. Pulses and derived products.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/es/faodef/ fdef04e.htm
FAO. 2012. Grassland Index. A searchable catalogue of grass and forage legumes. FAO, Rome,
Italy. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/GBASE/Default.htm
FAO. 2013. FAOSTAT – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home
FAO. 2016. Soils and pulses: Symbiosis for life. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FDA (Food and Drug Administration, USA). 2012. Bad Bug Book - Foodborne Pathogenic
Micro-organisms and Natural Toxins. FDA, Second Edition.
Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ/FAO.
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
Fitzherbert, A. 2007. Water management, livestock and the opium economy: livestock feed and
products. Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit’s three-year study “Applied Thematic
Research into Water Management, Livestock and the Opium Economy”. DAACAR, AREU,
Welt Hunger Hilfe.
Foiklang, S., Wanapat, M. & Toburan, W. 2010. Effect of various plant protein sources in
high-quality feed block on dry matter intake, digestibility and rumen fermentation in swamp
buffalo. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9(20): 2593–2599.
DOI: 10.3923/javaa.2010.2593.2599
Fuller, M.F. 2004. The encyclopaedia of farm animal nutrition. CABI Publishing Series, 606 p.
Garg, D.D., Arya, R.S., Sharma, T. & Dhuria, R.K. 2004. Effect of replacement of sewan straw
(Lasirus sindicus) by moong (Phaseolus aureus) chara on rumen and haemato-biochemical
parameters in sheep. Veterinary Practitioner, 5(1): 70–73.
Beans: References cited in Chapter 2 49

Gepts, P. & Bliss, F.A. 1984. Enhanced available methionine concentration associated with higher
phaseolin levels in common bean seeds. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 69: 47–53. Available
at: http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/gepts/Gepts%20&%20Bliss%20Enhanced%20
methionine.%201984.pdf
Gupta, B.N., Singh, R.B. & Chatterjee, D. 1981. Chemical composition and nutritive value of
rice bean (Phaseolus calcaratus Roxb.) hay. Indian Veterinary Journal, 58(9): 527–530.
Gupta, J.J., Yadav, B.P.S. & Gupta, H.K. 1992. Rice bean (Vigna umbellata) as poultry feed.
Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 9(1): 59–62.
Hossain, M.S., Miah, M.Y., Khandaker, Z.H. & Islam, F. 2015. Effect of different levels
of matikalai (Vigna mungo) hay supplementation to straw-based diets on feed intake,
digestibility and growth rate of indigenous cattle. Livestock Research and Rural Development,
27(2): Article #21. Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd27/2/hoss27021.html
Huisman, J., Van der Poel, A.F.B., Van Leeuwen, P. & Verstegen, M.W.A. 1990a. Comparison
of growth, nitrogen metabolism and organ weights in piglets and rats fed on diets containing
Phaseolus vulgaris beans. British Journal of Nutrition, 64(3): 743–753.
Huisman, J., Van der Poel, A.F.B., Mouwen, J.M.V.M. & Van Weerden, E.J. 1990b. Effect of variable
protein contents in diets containing Phaseolus vulgaris beans on performance, organ weights and
blood variables in piglets, rats and chickens. British Journal of Nutrition, 64(3): 755–764.
Ishler, V.A. & Adams, R.S. 2010. Drought-related issues in dairy cattle nutrition. Pennsylvania
State University, College Agric. Sci., Cooperative Extension.
Islam, M., Chowdhury, S.A. & Alam, M.R. 1997. The effect of supplementation of jackfruit
leaves (Artocarpus heterophyllus) and mashkalai (Vigna mungo) bran to common grass on the
performance of goats. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 10(2): 206–209.
DOI: 10.5713/ajas.1997.206
Islam, M., Sarker, N.R. & Islam, M.M. 1995. Effect of feeding legume forage with straw
supplementation on milk production at Pabna milk shed area. Asian-Australasian Journal of
Animal Sciences, 8(2): 107–111. DOI: 10.5713/ajas.1995.107
Jadhav, S.E. & Deshmukh, S.V. 2001. Evaluation of complete rations containing mungo bean
straw and wheat straw in sheep. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 18(2): 190–193.
Jansen, P.C.M. 2006a. Vigna angularis (Willd.) Ohwi & H. Ohashi. In: Brink, M. & Belay, G.
(Editors). PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa/Ressources végétales de l’Afrique
tropicale), Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Jansen, P.C.M. 2006b. Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper. Record from Protabase. Brink, M. & Belay,
G. (Editors). PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa/Ressources végétales de l’Afrique
tropicale), Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Joshi, K.D., Bhanduri, B., Gautam, R., Bajracharya, J. & Hollington, P.B. 2008. Rice
bean: a multi-purpose underutilized legume. pp. 234–248, in: J. Smartt, and N. Haq (Eds),
New crops and uses: their role in a rapidly changing world. International Centre for
Underutilized Crops.
Khanal, A. & Paudel, I.H. 2008. Farmer’s local knowledge associated with production,
utilization and diversity of rice bean in rice bean growing areas of Nepal. Draft version. April,
2008. LI-BIRD, Pokhara, Nepal.
Khatik, K.L., Vaishnava, C.S. & Gupta, L. 2007. Nutritional evaluation of green gram (Vigna
radiata L.) straw in sheep and goats. Indian Journal of Small Ruminants, 13(2): 196–198.
50 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Khokhar, S. & Chuhan, M. 1986. Anti-nutritional factors in moth bean (Vigna aconitifolia):
Varietal differences and effects of methods of domestic processing and cooking. Journal of
Food Science, 51(3): 591–594. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1986.tb13887.x
Khulbe, B.D. & Singh, R.P. 1973. Studies on the effect of replacing fish meal and yellow maize
in poultry mash on egg production. Indian Veterinary Journal, 50(8): 802–808.
Krishna, G., Mandal, A.B., Paliwal, V.K. & Yadav, K.R. 1989. Rice bean (Vigna umbellata) as a
feed for adult sheep. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 6(4): 365–368.
Krishna, G.R., Rao, D.S., Rao, Z.P. & Prasad, J.R. 2002. Nutrient utilization of concentrate
mixtures with varying levels of green gram (Vigna radiata) chuni by native male buffaloes.
Buffalo Journal, 18(1): 59–69.
Krishnamoorthy, U., Soller, H., Steingass, H. & Menke, K.H. 1995. Energy and protein
evaluation of tropical feedstuffs for whole tract and ruminal digestion by chemical analyses
and rumen inoculum studies in vitro. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 52(3–4): 177–188.
DOI: 10.1016/0377-8401(95)00734-5
Krupa, U. 2008. Main nutritional and anti-nutritional compounds of bean seeds – A Review.
Polish Journal of Food Nutrition and Sciences, 58(2): 149–155.
Lambrides, C.J. & Godwin, I.D. 2006. Mung bean. In: Chittarajan, K., Genome Mapping and
Molecular Breeding in Plants, 3: 69–90.
Lee, H.K. & Hong, J.H. 2000. Salt tolerance of Vigna angularis during germination and early
seeding growth. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 4: 59–69.
Linn, J.G., Hutjens, M.F., Shaver, R., Otterby, D.E., Howard, W.T. & Kilmer, L.H. 2002.
Feeding the dairy herd. University of Minnesota Extension, Pub. 346.
López, A. & Morales, M.S. 2001. Intake and apparent digestibility of forages in llamas (Lama glama).
II. clover hay (Trifolium pratense), ryegrass hay (Lolium multiflorum), beans straw (Phaseolus
vulgaris) and oat straw (Avena sativa). Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria, 33(2): 145–153.
López, S., Davies, D.R., Giraldez, F.J., Dhanoa, M.S., Dijkstra, J. & France, J. 2005.
Assessment of nutritive value of cereal and legume straws based on chemical composition and
in vitro digestibility. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85(9): 1550–1557.
Ma, Y. & Bliss, F.A. 1978. Seed proteins of common bean. Crop Science, 17: 431–437.
McMeniman, N.P., Elliott, R. & Ash, A. J. 1988. Supplementation of rice straw with crop
by-products. I. Legume straw supplementation. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 19(1–
2): 43–53. DOI: 10.1016/0377-8401(88)90053-3
Maréchal, R., Mascherpa, J.M. & Stainer, F. 1978. Etude taxonomique d’un groupe complexe
d’speces des genres Phaseolus et Vigna (Papilionaceae) sur la base de donnees morphologiques
et polliniques, traitees par l’analyse informatique. Boissiera, 28.
Mogotsi, K.K. 2006a. Phaseolus acutifolius A. Gray. In: Brink, M. & Belay, G. (Editors). PROTA
(Plant Resources of Tropical Africa/Ressources végétales de l’Afrique tropicale), Wageningen,
the Netherlands.
Mogotsi, K.K. 2006b. Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek. In: Brink, M. & Belay, G. (Editors).
PROTA 1: Cereals and pulses/Céréales et légumes secs. [CD-Rom].PROTA, Wageningen, the
Netherlands.
Mukherjee, A.K., Roquib, M.A. & Chatterjee, B.N. 1980. Rice-bean ‘K–1’ for the scarcity
period. Indian Farming, 29: 19–20.
Beans: References cited in Chapter 2 51

Nabhan, G.P. & Felger, R.S. 1978. Teparies in South western North America: A Biogeographical
and Ethnohistorical Study of Phaseolus acutifolius. Economic Botany, 32(1): 6–7.
Nitin, M., Ifthekar, S. & Mumtaz, M. 2012. Hepatoprotective activity of methanolic extract of
mungo bean. Ragiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences,
2(2): 62–67.
Nunes, I.J. 1998. Calculation and evaluation of diets and supplements. FEP-MVZ, Belo
Horizonte, 185.
Ofongo, S.T. & Ologhobo, A.D. 2007. Processed kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in broiler
feeding: Performance characteristics. Tropentag 2007, University of Kassel-Witzenhausen
and University of Göttingen, October 9–11, 2007, Conference on International Agricultural
Research for Development.
Om, V. & Singh, A.K. 2015. Moth bean [Vigna aconitifolia (Jacq.) Maréchal] germplasm: Evaluation
for genetic variability and inter characters relationship in hot arid climate of western Rajasthan,
India. Legume Research, 38(6): 748–752. DOI: 10.18805/lr.v38i6.6718
Patterson, H.H., Whittier, J.C., Rittenhouse, L.R. & Schutz, D.N. 1999. Performance of beef
cows receiving cull beans, sunflower meal, and canola meal as protein supplements while
grazing native winter range in Eastern Colorado. Journal of Animal Science, 77(3): 750–755.
Pieltain, M.C., Castañón, A.A.R., Flores, M.P. & Castañón, J.I.R. 1996. Nutritive value of
postharvest bean by-products (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) for ruminants. Animal Feed Science and
Technology, 62(2–4): 271–275. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8401(96)00963-7
Poné, D.K. & Fomunyam, R.T. 2004. Roasted full-fat kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
and soyabeans (Glycine max) meals in broiler chicken diet. Tropical Animal Health and
Production, 36(5): 513–521. DOI: 10.1023/B:TROP.0000034998.09948.fe
Proffitt, M. 2016. Oxford English dictionary. Online version. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
United Kingdom.
Qamar, I.A., Ahmad, M., Riaz, G. & Khan, S. 2014. Performance of summer forage legumes
and their residual effect on subsequent oat crop in sub-tropical sub-humid Pothwar, Pakistan.
Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, 27(1): 14–20.
Ramírez, R.G. & Ledezma-Torres, R.A. 1997. Forage utilization from native shrubs Acacia
rigidula and Acacia farnesiana by goats and sheep. Small Ruminant Research, 25(1): 43–50.
Available at: http://www.southwestnrm.org.au/sites/default/files/uploads/ihub/ramirez-rg-
ledezma-torres-ra-1997-forage-utilization-native-shrubs-acacia.pdf
Ravi, A., Rao, D.S. & Yedukondalu, R. 2005. Growth response and carcass characteristics of
crossbred finisher pigs fed rations containing green gram chuni. Indian Veterinary Journal,
82(1): 48–51.
Ravi, A., Rao, D.S., Reddy, K.K. & Rao, Z.P. 1999. Growth response and carcass characteristics
of crossbred barrows fed rations containing urad (Phaseolus mungo) chuni. Cheiron,
28(4): 102–106.
Reddy, D.V. 1997. The effect of supplementation of legume straws on utilization of rice straw-
poultry droppings-rice bran-fishmeal-based diet in buffaloes. Animal Feed Science and
Technology, 69(4): 305–314.
Reddy, K.S., Rao, D.S., Rao, Z.P. & Prasad, J.R. 2000. Effect of inclusion of varying levels of
urad (Phaseolus mungo) chuni in concentrate mixtures on the nutrient utilization in native
52 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

male buffaloes. Buffalo Bulletin, 19(2): 43–47.

Available at: http://www.bsas.org.uk/downloads/annlproc/Pdf2001/105.pdf
Reddy, K.S., Rao, D.S., Rao, Z.P. & Prasad, J.R. 2002. In sacco dry matter and protein
evaluation of urad (Vigna mungo) chuni in buffaloes. Buffalo Journal, 18(3): 283–287.
Robinson, D. & Singh, D.N. 2001. Alternative protein sources for laying hens. RIRDC publication
00/144. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Kingston ACT, Australia. 85 p.
Rungcharoen, P., Amornthewaphat, N., Ruangpanit, Y., Attamangkune, S. &
Rattanatabtimthong, S. 2010. The utilization of mung bean bran in nursery pig diets.
Proceedings of the 48th Kasetsart University Annual Conference, Kasetsart, 3–5 March, 2010.
Saikia, P., Sarkar, C.R. & Borua, I. 1999. Chemical composition, anti-nutritional factors and
effects of cooking on nutritional quality of rice bean [Vigna umbellata (Thumb.) Ohwi and
Ohashi]. Food Chemistry, 67: 347–352.
Salcedo, J. M. 2008. Regeneration guidelines: Common bean. In: Dulloo, M.E., Thormann, I.,
Jorge, M.A. and Hanson, J., editors. Crop-specific regeneration guidelines. CGIAR System-
wide Genetic Resource Programme, Rome, Italy. 9 p.
Sandeep, S., Singh, R.A., Singh, R., Rani, S.I. & Singh, K.K. 2000. Feed resources for rearing
livestock in the Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences,
70(5): 526–529.
Sanjiv, K. & Garg, M.C. 1995. Nutritional evaluation of mungo bean straw (Phaseolus mungo)
in Murrah heifers. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 12(3): 181–182.
Sastrapradja, S. & Sutarno, H. 1977. Vigna umbellata in Indonesia. Annales Bogorienses,
1977(6): 155–167.
Serrato Corona, J.S., Partida Rodríguez, R. & López Martínez, J.D. 2004. Inclusion of corn
stover and bean straw in growing goat rations. Agrofaz, 4(1): 455–458.
Sharma, O.P., Bambawale, O.M., Gopali, J.B., Bhagat, S., Yelshetty, S., Singh, S.K., Anand,
R. & Singh, O.M. 2011. Field guide: Mung bean and Urd bean. Government of India,
Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, NCIPM, ICAR, New Delhi, India.
Siddiq, M. & Uebersax, M.A. 2012. Dry beans and pulses: production, processing, and nutrition.
John Wiley & Sons, Iowa, USA.
Singh, K.K., Das, M.M., Samanta, A.K., Kundu, S.S. & Sharma, S.D. 2002. Evaluation
of certain feed resources for carbohydrate and protein fractions and in situ digestion
characteristics. Indian Journal of Animal Science, 72(9): 794–797.
Singh, R.B., Saha, R.C. & Singh, S. 2000. Effect of feeding ricebean and sorghum sudan mixed
fodder on growth and nutrient utilization in crossbred calves. Indian Journal of Animal
Nutrition, 17(2): 160–161.
Singh, V. S., Palod, J., Vatsya, S., Rajeev, R.K. & Shukla, S.K. 2013. Effect of sprouted mung
bean (Vigna radiata) supplementation on performance of broilers during mixed Eimeria
species infection. Veterinary Research International, 1(2): 41–45.
Available at: http://jakraya.com/Journal/pdf/2-vriArticle_2.pdf
Siriwan, P., Pimsan, S. & Nakkitset, S. 2005a. The use of fermented red kidney bean as a feed
supplement in broilers’ diets. Pp. 220–228, in: Proceedings of 43rd Kasetsart University
Annual Conference, Thailand, 1–4 February, 2005:.
Siriwan, P., Pimsan, S. & Nakkitset, S. 2005b. The use of ground red kidney bean as a feed
Beans: References cited in Chapter 2 53

supplement in broilers’ diets. Pp 229–236 in: Proceedings of 43rd Kasetsart University Annual
Conference, Thailand, 1–4 February, 2005
Sitthigripong, R. 1996. Nutritional evaluation of mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek]
meal vermicelli by-product as feed for swine. In: Thesis, University of the Philippines, Los
Banos-College of Agriculture, Laguna, pp 121.
Sitthigripong, R. & Alcantara, P.F. 1998. Amino acid supplementation of high mungbean meal
vermicelli by-product diets for growing-finishing pigs. Kasetsart Journal: Natural Science,
32(2): 242–252.
Available at: http://kasetsartjournal.ku.ac.th/kuj_files/2008/A0804281006188040.pdf
Sreerangaraju, G., Krishnamoorthy, U. & Kailas, M.M. 2000. Evaluation of bengal gram
(Cicer arietinum) husk as a source of tannin and its interference in rumen and post-rumen
nutrient digestion in sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 85(1–2): 131–138.
Swain, P.S., Rao, D., Srinivasa, Nagalakshmi, D., Ray, S., Mishra, A. & Sethy, K. 2015.
Carbohydrate and protein fractions of commonly available pulse chunies. Indian Journal of
Animal Nutrition, 32(4): 460–465.
Thang, C.M., Sanh, M.V. & Wiktorsson, H. 2008. Effects of supplementation of mixed cassava
(Manihot esculenta) and legume (Phaseolus calcaratus) fodder on the rumen degradability and
performance of growing cattle. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 21(1): 66–74.
Tin Maung Aye, 2001. Developing sustainable soil fertility in Southern Shan State of Myanmar.
PhD Thesis. Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Tomooka, N., Kaga, A., Isemura, T. & Vaughan, D. 2011. Vigna. Chapter 15. In: Chittaranjan,
K. (Ed.) Wild crop relatives: Genomic and breeding resources, Legume crops and forages.
Tomooka, N., Lairungreang, C., Nakeeraks, P., Egawa, Y. & Thavarasook, C. 1991. Mung
bean and the genetic resources. Tohoku Agricultural Research Center (TARC), Japan.
Venkateswarlu, S., Srinivas Kumar, D. & Narendranath, D. 2013. Nutrient utilization in
buffalo bulls fed crop-residue-based rations. Online Journal of Animal and Feed Research,
3(2): 101–105.
Vinh, N.T., Tuan, B.Q. & Hang, N.M. 2013. The use of mung bean (Phaseolus aureus) hulls in
diets of laying hens. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 25: Article #14.
Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/1/vinh25014.htm
Van der Poel, A.F.B. 1990. Effect of processing on antinutritional factors and protein nutritional
value of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) – A review. Animal Feed Science and Technology,
29(3–4): 179–208. DOI: 10.1016/0377-8401(90)90027-6
Van der Poel, A.F.B., Blonk, J., Huisman, J. & Den Hartog, L.A. 1991b. Effect of steam
processing temperature and time on the protein nutritional value of Phaseolus vulgaris beans
for swine. Livestock Production Science, 28(4): 305–319. DOI: 10.1016/0301-6226(91)90012-F
Van der Poel, A.F.B., Kemp, B., Wahle, E.R. & Van Zuilichem, D.J. 1991a. Pig ileal digestibility
associated with antinutritional factors and protein quality in Phaseolus beans and soyabeans.
Pp 50–54, in: M.W.A Verstegen, J. Huisman and L.A. den Hartog (Eds.). Digestive physiology
in pigs. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on digestive physiology in pigs
Wageningen (Doorwerth), the Netherlands, 24-26 April 1991.
Wanapat, M., Wongnen, N., Sangkloy, W., Pilajun, R. & Kanpukdee, S. 2012. On-farm use of
legume (Phaseolus calcaratus) and Ruzi grass on rumen fermentation and milk production in
lactating dairy cows. Agricultural Science, 3(3): 355–360. DOI: 10.4236/as.2012.33041
54 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Wiryawan, K.G., Dingle, J.G., Kumar, A., Gaughan, J.B. & Young, B.A. 1995. True
metabolizable energy content of grain legumes: effects of enzyme supplementation. In: J.B.
Rowe & J.V. Nolan (Eds.). Recent advances in animal nutrition in Australia. University of
New England, Armidale, Australia. 196 p.
Wiryawan, K.G., Miller, H.M. & Holmes, J.H.G. 1997. Mung beans (Phaseolus aureus) for
finishing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 66(1–4): 297–303.
DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8401(96)01061-9
Wortmann, C.S. 2006. Phaseolus vulgaris L. (common bean). Record from PROTA4U. Brink,
M. & Belay, G. (Editors). PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa/Ressources végétales
de l’Afrique tropicale), Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Zahera, R., Permana, I.G. & Despal. 2015. Utilization of mung bean’s green house fodder and
silage in the ration for lactating dairy cows. Media Peternakan, 38(2): 123–131.
DOI: 10.5398/medpet.2015.38.2.123
Zong, X.X., Kaga, A., Tomooka, N., Wang, X.W., Han, O.K. & Vaughan, D.A. 2003. The
genetic diversity of the Vigna angularis complex in Asia. Genome, 46(4): 647–658.
 55

Chapter 3
Broad bean
COMMON NAMES
Bell bean, English bean, faba bean, fava bean, field bean, horse bean, tick
bean, Windsor bean (Mejía, 1984) (English); féverole, féverolle, fève (French);
gourgane (French/Canada); haba, habas, haba común, jaba (Spanish); fava,
fava-comum (Portuguese); tuinboom (Dutch); Ackerbohne (German); kara
oncet (Indonesian); bakla (Turkish).

DISTRIBUTION
Information about the exact origin of Broad bean (Vicia faba L.) is very
limited. This reflects the fact that broad bean varieties found in the field are
domesticated, and until now neither wild relatives nor closely related species
have been found (Maxted, Khattab and Bisby, 1991). Therefore, the origin of
broad bean has been debated and some authors have proposed that the species
was domesticated in the Fertile Crescent, in what is Iraq today (Ladizinsky,
1998). However, very recent research found 14 000-year-old seeds of broad
bean in Mount Carmel, Israel, which suggest that the species’ origin is in the
Lower Galilee area (Caracuta et al., 2016).
Broad bean had been cultivated in the Middle East for 8 000 years, before
it spread to Europe, North Africa, and Central Asia. It spread to China over
2 000 years ago via traders along the Silk Road, to South America in the
Columbian period, and more recently to Canada and Australia (Stoddard,
1991). Broad bean was first grown commercially for grain in South Australia
in the early 1980s, and is now cultivated in Victoria, New South Wales
and Western Australia. Small areas are grown in Tasmania and southern
Queensland (Somerville, 2002).

DESCRIPTION
Broad bean is a free-standing,
upright annual legume crop that
is sown in winter or spring and,
even though primarily grown for
its edible seeds (beans), it can
also be used as a whole-crop.
© FAO/Teodardo Calles

Broad beans show a wide range

in the size and shape of their
seeds. Those with the largest
and flatter seeds (Vicia faba var.
major) are called broad beans
(fava beans in United States of Photo 3.1.1 Split broad beans (Vicia faba L.)
56 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

America) and are cultivated as a vegetable for human consumption. Broad

beans are generally harvested while still immature, and typically have a 1 000
seed weight of over 800 g. Those used as an animal feed in Ireland are smaller
and rounder, and are interchangeably referred to as field, horse or tick beans.
More strictly, intermediate-sized seeds (Vicia faba var. equina) are horse beans
(500–800 g/1 000 seeds) and the smaller-sized seeds (Vicia faba var. minor) are
tick beans (<500 g/1 000 seeds) (O’Kiely, Stacey and Hackett, 2014).

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR CULTIVATION

Broad bean can not only be grown successfully under various agro-climatic
conditions, but it can also be produced on residual soil moisture, is relatively
tolerant of biotic and abiotic stresses, with minimum input (Singh and Prevesh,
2009; Singh and Bhatt, 2012). It can be grown as a winter or a spring crop in
wetter areas, but requires a cool winter for optimal growth. It can survive frost
during the vegetative stage but frost damages flowers and immature pods if it
occurs during spring. Broad bean can grow optimally in temperatures ranging
between 18 and 27 °C (Matthews and Marcellos, 2003), with annual rainfall
ranging from 700 to 1 000 mm (Muehlbauer and Tullu, 1997). In the tropics
and sub-tropics, broad bean can be grown above 1 200 masl and up to an
altitude of 2 500 masl (FAO, 2016a). It does better on deep, well-structured
clay soils, but can grow on a wide range of soils provided they are not too
acidic or saline. Acidic soils with high levels of aluminium and manganese can
be detrimental to growth of broad bean (Matthews and Marcellos, 2003).

PRODUCTION OF SEEDS
Broad bean is among the oldest crops in the world (Duc et al., 2016). Globally,
it is the third most important feed grain legume after soybean [Glycine max
(L.) Merr.] and pea (Pisum sativum L.) in area and production (Mihailović
et al., 2005). Currently, 58 countries grow this bean on a large scale (FAO,
2016b). Global production of broad bean for food and feed was 4.5 million
tonne in 2012 (Feedipedia, 2016). The major producing countries are China,
Ethiopia, Australia, France and United Kingdom, and they account for more
than 75 percent of world production. China alone produced 34 percent of
all broad beans in 2013 (FAO, 2016b). In the EU, broad bean ranks second
after field peas for legume seed production and is mostly used for animal feed
(FAO, 2016b).

BROAD BEAN AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

Broad bean seeds
Broad bean seeds are a valuable source of protein and energy for livestock,
as they contain 25–33 percent protein, 40–48 percent starch and 7–11 percent
crude fibre on DM basis (Table 3.1). It contains about 1 percent lipid (DM
basis) with a high proportion of linoleic (60.7 percent) and linolenic (14.3
percent) acids, followed by palmitic acid (11.6 percent). Broad beans contain
Broad bean 57

Table 3.1 Chemical composition of broad bean and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Parameter Seeds Aerial part, fresh Straw

Crude protein 25.2–33.5 14.3–20.7 5.0–10.9

Ether extract 0.9–2.1 1.0–1.5
Crude fibre 7.1–11.2 14.7–32.2 23.9–50.3
NDF 12.4–22.1 46.9 42.0–74.5
ADF 8.5–12.8 29.7 30.0–71.5
Ash 3.3–4.6 5.9–12.8 3.3–18.4
Lignin 0.2–2.6 4.9–15.9
Calcium 0.08–0.27 0.94–1.40
Phosphorus 0.44–0.68 0.09–0.15
DM (as fed) is 83.4–89.8 percent for seed, 10.5–30.0 for aerial part and 88.6–90.7 percent for straw.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).

0.12 percent calcium, 0.44 percent phosphorus and 0.18 percent magnesium.
Broad beans are a poor source of vitamins such as biotin, choline, niacin,
pantothenic acid and riboflavin; however, the level of thiamine is higher than
that of soybean meal or rapeseed meal (Blair, 2007). Dehulled broad beans
have a higher nutritional value than non-dehulled beans, as they contain more
protein and starch and much less fibre (Ferruzzi et al., 2009).
Although broad beans are a good source of protein, they are low in
the sulphur-containing amino acids such as methionine and cysteine. The
amino acid profile will limit inclusion of broad beans in high density diets of
monogastrics. In addition, the availability of amino acids is influenced by the
presence of various anti-nutritional factors (Froelich, Pallmer and Christ, 1976).
Small-seed varieties with low tannin, vicine-convicine and trypsin inhibitor
contents of broad bean are preferred for livestock feeding (McVicar et al.,
2013). Broad bean can be used as an alternative protein source to soybean for
livestock in Europe (Jezierny, Mosenthin and Bauer, 2010; Smith et al., 2013).

Digestibility of seeds. Broad beans are usually quite palatable for ruminants,
and are an excellent source of both protein and energy for ruminants. The
protein is extensively and rapidly degradable in the rumen and provides
degradable protein for microbial protein synthesis. A part of protein that
escapes ruminal degradation is accessible later in the intestinal tract as
undegradable protein. Levels of undegradable protein can be increased by heat
treatment (Yu et al., 2004). Extrusion of broad beans can also provide much
higher rumen undegradable protein than soybean meal (more than 12 percent,
DM basis), which is higher than for other raw or processed legume seeds such
as pea or lupin (Masoero, Pulimeno and Rossi, 2005). Extrusion did not affect
amino acid composition. Similarly, Yu, Goelema and Tamminga (2000) stated
that extrusion of beans at 136 °C for 15 min yielded the highest values of
rumen undegradable protein and, at the same time, it maintained a sufficient
amount of degradable protein for microbial protein synthesis.
58 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

The energy value of broad beans is at least as good as cereal grains such
as barley. They have a high content of starch, some of which can bypass the
rumen and be digested at a later stage of the digestive tract. Their content
of fibre is relatively low, with much of it being in the hull (seed coat). Oil
concentration is also low, but the oil that is present has a high content of
linoleic and linolenic acids. The effective starch degradability of broad bean
grains in the rumen of lactating cows was above 58 percent (Aleksić, Grubić
and Pavličević, 1999). Crépon et al. (2010) observed lower in vivo digestibility
with tannin-rich broad beans, but higher protein and amino acid digestibilities
with tannin-free cultivars in pigs and poultry.

Broad bean hull

Broad bean hulls contain 14.3 percent crude protein and a high level of crude
fibre (39.6 percent, DM basis). Higher protein content may be the presence of
some broken seeds in hulls. It also contains high fibre fractions, especially of
cellulose (50.2 percent, DM basis) and ADF (53.0 percent, DM basis). Content
of condensed tannins was 6.75 mg/kg DM of the hulls. It is suggested that
broad bean hulls can be used as a feed for ruminant animals (Minakowski,
Skórko-Sajko and Fałkowska, 1996).

Broad bean forage

Broad bean is a multipurpose crop used for both food and fodder (Prolea,
2014). Fresh broad bean forage contains a relatively good quality of protein
(14 to 20 percent, DM basis), with the highest protein content at full flowering
stage, and thereafter it decreases.
Good quality silage can be made from broad bean plants (McVicar et al.,
2013). Silages have a high crude protein (18–22 percent, DM basis), which
is highly soluble and degradable (Mustafa and Seguin, 2003). Ruminal
degradability of DM, NDF and CP decline as broad bean crops become
progressively more mature (Louw, 2009). Silages made from whole-crop are
relatively stable when exposed to air during feedout (Pursiainen and Tuori,
2008). However, management during feedout needs care to prevent conditions
that cause aerobic deterioration of silage. Baddeley and Walker (2014)
recommended that crops of broad bean should be harvested when pods are
fully formed and the beans are flexible with soft texture.

Broad bean crop reside (straw)

Broad bean straw is considered to be a cash crop in Egypt and Sudan
(Muehlbauer and Tullu, 1997), as it contains 5–11 percent protein (DM basis).
Voluntary DMI and digestibility of DM, OM and energy of broad bean straw
by sheep were significantly (P<0.05) higher than those of wheat straw, but
were not significantly different from those of medium quality alfalfa + brome
hay.
Broad bean 59

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Broad bean seeds contain various anti-nutritional substances such as tannins,
lectins, glycosides (vicine and convicine), phytates, oligosaccharides, and
inhibitors of enzymes (trypsin, chymotrypsin, alpha-amylase). The most
undesirable anti-nutritional factors are tannins and glycosides.

Tannins
Tannins present in the seed coat of broad beans have a negative effect on the
availability of both amino acids and energy in monogastric diets. However, the
problem is readily addressed by dehulling. In addition, tannin-free genotypes
are now available. The whole seed of traditional varieties contains tannin at the
level of 0.02 to 0.05 percent (Minakowski, Skórko-Sajko and Fałkowska, 1996).
Tannins are resistant to heat and dry heating. In normal conditions tannins may
form poor digestibility tannin-protein complexes, which reduce the susceptibility
of proteins to degradation in the rumen and decrease nutrient digestibility in the
whole gastro-intestinal tract of ruminants (Frutos et al., 2004).

Glycosides
Glycosides (vicine and convicine) are mainly located in the embryo and
their content ranges from 0.58 to 1.04 percent (DM basis), depending on
the genotype (Minakowski, Skórko-Sajko and Fałkowska, 1996). Vicine and
convincine are not toxic per se, but are hydrolysed by beta-glycosidase in the
intestine into divicine and isouramil. These glycosides were not shown to
affect broad bean digestibility in pigs, but they were reported to be responsible
for lower egg weight in laying hens (Grosjean et al., 2001; Lessire et al., 2005;
Gatta et al., 2013). New cultivars of broad beans having very low level of
vicine and convicine contents are now available in the market.
Some level of processing is required to facilitate adequate digestion of the
protein and starch of the beans. This processing can be: rolling/cracking or
coarse grinding, or more intensive processing such as micronizing (infrared
heating), extrusion, steaming and autoclaving; or dehulling, flaking, soaking,
and germinating. Some of these processes can reduce the activity of anti-
nutritional factors in the beans or contribute to repartitioning some of the
protein and/or starch digestion from the rumen to later in the gastro-intestinal
tract (Crepon et al., 2010).

FEEDING OF SEED AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS

Cattle
Broad beans have been successfully used as a substitute for soybean meal
or rapeseed meal in dairy cow rations. The animals offered soybean meal
or broad beans with balanced diets had similar feed intakes, milk yields,
milk composition, growth rates and carcass composition (Crepon et al.,
2010; Tufarelli, Khan and Laudadio, 2012). Becker et al. (2012) considered
60 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

the maximum inclusion rate of broad bean to be 30 percent in the ration of

dairy cows. Various studies show that replacing rapeseed meal with broad
beans in iso-energetic and iso-proteic diets did not affect voluntary total
intake, milk production and milk composition (Brunschwig and Lamy, 2002;
Trommenschlager et al., 2003; Brunschwig et al., 2004). A study conducted by
Melicharova et al. (2009) indicated that anti-nutritional factors present in broad
bean did not affect milk production, milk composition, cow health, rumen
digestion and mineral metabolism in high-yielding cows (25–30 kg milk/day)
fed a concentrate containing 20 percent broad beans. Benchaar et al. (1992)
reported that feeding extruded beans improved ruminal digestibility of the
starch fraction compared with that of the untreated beans (72 vs 58 percent) and
their subsequent utilization in the small intestine (1.61 vs 0.98 kg/day).

Sheep
Surra et al. (1992) found that substituting soybean by broad bean (50 or 100
percent) had no effect on digestibility or performance of growing lambs. In
another study, El Maadoudi (2004) reported that the inclusion of broad bean
in the ration of lambs (replacing 18 percent lupin seeds of the diet) had no
significant effect (P >0.05) on weight gain, intake, feed efficiency or carcass
yield. Lanza et al. (2007) also reported that inclusion of broad beans in the diet
of lambs (50 percent) did not affect meat quality compared with soybean meal.
Mauro et al. (2002) reported that feeding broad bean seeds (50–60 percent of
the diet), as the sole protein source to supplement cereal straw in growing
lambs had a daily weight gain of 250 g/d, with an average DMI of 1.18 kg/
day (0.65 kg/d of broad bean). Feeding broad beans with supplementation
of lysine and methionine did not increase the growth rate in growing lambs,
which clearly demonstrates the high protein value of broad beans (Mauro et
al., 2002).

Goats
Effects of feeding formaldehyde-treated broad bean seeds to goats have been
evaluated in India. Virk et al. (1994) observed that feeding formaldehyde-treated
broad beans (1.0 percent formaldehyde) increased DM and protein digestibility
and N retention in goat kids. However, Tewatia et al. (1995) observed that
formaldehyde (0.4–0.5 percent of formaldehyde)-treated broad beans (0.4 kg/
day) did not improve significantly total milk yield, milk fat, total solids, DM
and fibre digestibility, N balance or rumen profile in low yielding goats.

Pigs
Broad beans are palatable to pigs, but their use is limited due to presence of
anti-nutritional factors, particularly tannins (Garrido et al., 1991; Van der
Poel, Gravendeel and Boer, 1991). However, zero-tannin broad beans could
be included at rates of up to 30 percent in pig diets, without affecting feed
intake (Lopetinsky and Zijlstra, 2004). Other anti-nutritional factors such as
Broad bean 61

trypsin inhibitor, lectins, vicine and convicine are not a concern in pig diets at
low levels of inclusion (Grosjean et al., 2001; Blair, 2007). Low-tannin broad
beans did not affect voluntary feed intake and carcass quality when included
at 30 percent of the diet to replace soybean meal in growing pig diets (Zijlstra
et al., 2004). Royer et al. (2010) also observed that low-tannin broad beans can
be included at higher rates (35 percent) against 20 percent level for the high-
tannin beans in fattening pig diets.
Maximum inclusion rate of broad bean in the diet of growing and fattening
pig was recommended at 20 percent. Though rates up to 30 percent have
been tested without any adverse effect on feed intake, feed conversion ratio
and carcass quality of growing pigs, there was a slight reduction effect on
the average daily gain of finishing pigs (Gatta et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2013).
Kasprowicz, Frankiewicz and Urbaniak (2005) also observed increasing daily
weight gains and better feed conversion ratios when fed up to 30 percent broad
bean, replacing 25, 50 or 75 percent soybean meal in growing pigs. Partial
replacement of soybean meal with broad bean (18 percent of the diet) did not
affect health and metabolic parameters of fattening pigs (Gatta et al., 2013;
Giuliotti et al., 2014).
It has been reported that feeding pigs with broad bean had a positive effect
on the omega 3:omega 6 ratio of the fat. The pigs fed on broad bean yielded
hams with more intense taste than those fed on soybean meal or field peas
(Prandini et al., 2011). Blair (2007) recommended maximum inclusion rate of
broad beans for sows to be 10 percent.

Poultry
Broilers. Processed (dehulled, extruded or pelleted) broad bean can be included
up to 25 percent in broilers diets without affecting growth performance
(Métayer et al., 2003). Brévault et al. (2003) reported that low-tannin broad
beans included at 20 percent in broiler diets resulted in higher live-weight
gain and feed intake than those obtained with high-tannin beans. However,
Métayer et al. (2003) reported no differences in performance when high- or
low-tannin seeds were included at 25 percent in broiler diets, even though
the metabolizable energy value of the high-tannin beans was lower. Recent
work carried out in New Zealand (Ravindran et al., 2005) showed that when
diets are formulated on the basis of metabolizable energy and apparent ileal
digestibility of amino acids, broad beans can be used successfully in broiler
diets up to levels of 20 percent.

Layers. Layer hens are more sensitive to the presence of vicine and convicine
in broad beans, with reduced egg size and feed intake commonly reported
for birds fed diets containing broad beans (Fru-Nji, Niess and Pfeffer, 2007).
However, Dänner (2003) reported that broad beans with 0.69 percent vicine
and convicine could be used without negative effects on egg production and
feed intake at levels of up to 30 percent in laying hen diets. Fru-Nji, Niess
62 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

and Pfeffer (2007) also reported that broad beans (with a vicine and convicine
content of 0.88 percent) could be included in layer hen diet at levels of up to
16 percent without a significant reduction in production or egg quality. It was
recommended that inclusion rates for varieties free of vicine and convicine can
be up to 20 percent with no detrimental effect on laying performance (Lessire
et al., 2005; Magoda and Gous, 2011).

SUMMARY
Small-seeded varieties of broad bean with low tannins, glycosides and trypsin
inhibitor contents are preferred for livestock feeding. Seeds are a valuable
source of protein and energy; and can be used up to 30 percent in the ration
of dairy cows, replacing soybean meal or rapeseed meal. Feeding broad bean
seeds at up to 50–60 percent of the diet did not affect feed intake, feed effi-
ciency or carcass quality in lamb. Processed broad bean seeds can be used in
monogastrics. Zero-tannin broad beans can be included up to 30 percent in
growing and finishing pig diets. The maximum inclusion level of broad bean
should not be more than 10 percent in sow diet. Processed or glycosides-free
varieties of broad beans can be included up to 20 percent in layer and broiler
poultry diet. Broad bean hulls can be used as feeding for ruminants. Good
quality silage can be made from broad bean plants.

REFERENCES CITED IN CHAPTER 3

Aleksić, D., Grubić, G. & Pavlićević, A. 1999. Starch degradability of some concentrate feeds
used in dairy cow nutrition. Acta Veterinaria Belgrade, 49: 269–274.
Baddeley, J. & Walker, R. 2014. Field beans. Available at:
http://www.sruc.ac.uk/info/120582/organic_farming_technical_summaries/1288/
field_beans_and_lupins
Becker, P.M., Meulen, J. van der, Jansman, A.J.M. & Wikselaar, P.G. van. 2012. In vitro
inhibition of ETEC K88 adhesion by pea hulls and of LT enterotoxin binding by faba bean
hulls. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 96(6): 1121–1126.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2011.01229.x
Benchaar, C., Vernay, M., Bayourthe, C. & Moncoulon, R. 1992. Incidence of bean (Vicia faba)
extrusion on starch and nitrogen intestinal flows in lactating cows. Reproduction Nutrition
Development, 32(3): 265–275.
Blair, R. 2007. Nutrition and feeding of organic pigs. CABI, Wallingford, UK. Available at
http://www.cabi.org/cabebooks/ebook/20073072446
Brévault, N., Mansuy, E., Crépon, K., Bouvarel, I., Lessire, M. & Rouillère, H. 2003.
Utilization de différentes variétés de féverole pour l’alimentation du poulet biologique.
Cinquièmes Journées de la Recherche Avicole, Tours, 26 et 27 mars 2003.
Brunschwig, P. & Lamy, J.M. 2002. Faba bean or sunflower meal as vegetable sources of protein
in dairy cow diets. In: Rencontres Recherches Ruminants, 2002. Available at:
http://www.journees3r.fr/IMG/pdf/2002_alimentation_19_Brunschwig-4.pdf
Broad bean 63

Brunschwig, P., Lamy, J.M., Peyronnet, C. & Crépon, K. 2004. Faba bean valorization in
complete diet for dairy cows. In: Rencontres Recherches Ruminants, 9: 316. Available at:
http://www.journees3r.fr/IMG/pdf/2004_alimentation_19_Brunschwig_P.pdf
Caracuta, V., Weinstein-Evron, M., Kaufman, D., Yeshurun, R., Silvent, J. & Boaretto, E.
2016. 14,000-year-old seeds indicate the Levantine origin of the lost progenitor of faba bean.
Scientific Reports, 6, 37399. DOI: 10.1038/srep373992004
Crépon, K., Marget, P., Peyronnet, C., Carrouée, B., Arese, P. & Duc, G. 2010. Nutritional value
of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) seeds for feed and food. Field Crops Research, 115(3): 329–339.
DOI:10.1016/j.fcr.2009.09.016
Danner, E.E. 2003. Einsatz von Vicin/Convicin-armen Ackerbohnen (Vicia faba) bei Legehennen.
Archiv für Geflügelkunde, 67: 249–252.
Duc, G., Aleksić, J. M., Marget, P., Mikić, A., Paull, J., Redden, R.J., Sass, O., Stoddard F.L.,
Vandenberg, A., Vishnyakova & Torres, A.M. 2016. pp 141–178, in: A.M. de Ron (ed). Grain
legumes. Springer, New York, USA.
El Maadoudi, E.H. 2004. Lupine and horse-bean seeds in diets of growing and fattening sheep.
pp. 249–253, in H. Ben Salem, A. Nefzaoui & P. Morand-Fehr (eds). Nutrition and feeding
strategies of sheep and goats under harsh climates. CIHEAM, Zaragoza, Spain.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2016a. Ecocrop database.
Rome, Italy. Available at: http://ecocrop.fao.org
FAO. 2016b. FAO statistical databases (FAOSTAT). Rome, Italy.
Available at: http://faostat.fao.org
Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ/FAO.
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
Ferruzzi, G., Pistoia, A., Balestri, G., Casarosa, L. & Poli, P. 2009. Effect of different
processing methods on the nutritional characteristics and tannin content of faba bean seed
(Vicia faba minor). Italian Journal of Animal Science, 8 (suppl. 2): 298–300.
DOI: 10.4081/ijas.2009.s2.298
Froelich, W.G., Pallmer, W.G. & Christ, W. 1976. Variation of the contents of protein and of
methionine and cystine in Vicia faba L. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenzüchtung, 72(2): 160–175.
Fru-Nji, F., Niess, E. & Pfeffer, E. 2007. Effect of graded replacement of soybean meal by
faba beans (Vicia faba L.) or field peas (Pisum sativum L.) in rations for laying hens on egg
production and quality. The Journal of Poultry Science, 44(1): 34–41.
Available at: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpsa/44/1/44_1_34/_pdf
Frutos, P., Hervás, G., Giráldez, F.J. & Mantecón, A.R. 2004. Review. Tannins and ruminant
nutrition. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 2(2): 191–202. Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.601.413&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Garrido, A., Gomez-Cabrera, A., Guerrero, J.E. & Marquardt, R.R. 1991. Chemical
composition and digestibility in vitro of Vicia faba L. cultivars varying in tannin content.
Animal Feed Science and Technology, 35(3–4): 205–211. DOI: 10.1016/0377-8401(91)90127-E
Gatta, D., Russo, C., Giuliotti, L., Mannari, C., Picciarelli, P., Lombardi, L., Giovannini, L.,
Ceccarelli, N. & Mariotti, L. 2013. Influence of partial replacement of soya bean meal by
faba beans or peas in heavy pigs diet on meat quality, residual anti-nutritional factors and
phytoestrogen content. Archives of Animal Nutrition, 67(3): 235–247.
DOI: 10.1080/1745039X.2013.801137
64 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Giuliotti, L., Salvadori, G., Moscati, L., Sensi, M., Ventura, A., Benvenuti, M. N., Russo,
C. & Gatta, D. 2014. Influence of partial introduction of protein sources alternative
to soybean on some metabolic and immunological parameters in fattening pigs. Large
Animal Review, 20(2): 59–62. Available at: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/
FullTextPDF/2014/20143189556.pdf
Grosjean, F., Cerneau, P., Bourdillon, A., Bastianelli, D., Peyronnet, C. & Duc, G. 2001.
Feeding value, for pig, of near isogenic faba beans containing or not tannins and with
high or low levels of vicine or convicine. Journees de la Recherche Porcine en France,
33: 205–210.
Jezierny, D., Mosenthin, R. & Bauer, E. 2010. The use of grain legumes as a protein source in
pig nutrition: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 157(3–4): 111–128.
DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.03.001
Kasprowicz, M., Frankiewicz, A. & Urbaniak, M. 2005. Effect of different levels of faba bean
in diets on growth performance of young pigs. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 14(Suppl.
1): 357–360.
Ladizinsky, G. 1998. Plant evolution under domestication, eBook ISBN 978-94-011-4429-2, 1st
ed. Publisher: Springer, the Netherlands. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-4429-2
Lanza, M., Bella, M., Priolo, A. & Pennisi P. 2007. Alternative legume seeds and lamb meat
quality. pp. 171–176: in: A. Priolo, L. Biondi & H. Ben Salem (eds). Advanced nutrition and
feeding strategies to improve sheep and goat. CIHEAM, Zaragoza, Spain.
Lessire, M., Hallouis, J. M., Chagneau, A.M., Besnard, J., Travel, A., Bouvarel, I., Crépon, K.,
Duc, G. & Dulieu, P. 2005. Effect of field bean vicine and convicine content on production
performances of laying hens and the quality of the egg. Sixièmes Journées de la Recherche
Avicole, Saint-Malo, 30 et 31 mars 2005.
Lopetinsky, K. & Zijlstra, R. 2004. Zero-tannin faba bean nutrient assessment and swine
performance trials for Alberta. Project # NIF-2003–031. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural
Development and Prairie Swine Centre Inc., Edmonton, Canada.
Louw, A.W. 2009. The nutritive value of faba bean silage for lactating dairy cows Thesis for
Master of Science in Agriculture. Stellenbosch University, South Africa. 85 p.
McVicar, R., Panchuk, D., Brenzil, C., Hartley, S., Pearse, P. & Vandenberg, A. 2013. Faba
bean. Retrieved from Government of Saskatchewan.
Magoda, S.F. & Gous, R.M. 2011. Evaluation of dehulled faba bean (Vicia faba cv. Fiord) as a
protein source for laying hens. South African Journal of Animal Science, 41(2): 87–93.
Available at: http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/sajas/v41n2/v41n2a03.pdf
Masoero, F., Pulimeno, A.M. & Rossi, F. 2005. Effect of extrusion, espansion and toasting on the
nutritional value of peas, faba beans and lupins. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 4: 177–189.
Matthews, P. & Marcellos, H. 2003. Faba bean. New South Wales, Department of Primary
Industries, Division of Plant Industries, Sydney, Australia.
Available at: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/157729/faba-beanpt1.pdf
Mauro, A., Anna, A., Oreste, F., Maria, P.P., Carolina, P., Arianna, B., & Marco, B. 2002. Field
bean (Vicia faba var. minor) as a protein feed for growing lambs with and without protected
lysine and methionine supplementation. Italian Journal of. Animal Science, 1(3): 229–238.
Maxted, N., Khattab, M.A. & Bisby, A. 1991. Domesticated legumes and their wild
relatives: newly discovered relatives of Vicia faba L. do little to resolve the enigma of its
Broad bean 65

origin. Botanika Chronika, 10: 435–465. Available at:

http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=a2c9a5ff-8467-4880-9ad7-18a4515eb0d2
Mejía, M. 1984. Scientific and common names of tropical forage species. Centro Internacional de
Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia.
Melicharova, V., Pechova, A., Dvorak, R. & Pavlata, L. 2009. Performance and metabolism
of dairy cows fed bean seeds (Vicia faba) with different levels of anti-nutritional substances.
Journal Acta Veterinaria Brno, 78(1): 57–66. DOI: 10.2754/avb200978010057
Métayer, J.P., Barrier-Guillot, B., Skiba, F., Crépon, K., Bouvarel, I., Marget, P., Duc, G. &
Lessire, M. 2003. Valeur alimentaire et utilization de différents types de féveroles chez le poulet
et le coq adulte. Cinquièmes Journées de la Recherche Avicole, Tours, 26 et 27 mars 2003.
Mihailović, V., Mikić, A., Ćupina, B. & Eric, P. 2005. Field pea and vetches in Serbia and
Montenegro. Grain Legumes, 44: 25–26.
Minakowski, D., Skórko-Sajko, H. & Fałkowska, A. 1996. Nutritive value of faba bean hulls
for ruminants. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences., 5: 225–233.
Muehlbauer, F. & Tullu, A. 1997. Vicia faba L. Factsheet. Purdue University, Center for New
Crops and Plant Products, West Lafayette, USA. Available at: https://hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/
Mustafa, A. F. & Seguin, P. 2003. Characteristics and in situ degradability of whole-crop faba
bean, pea and soybean silages. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 83(4): 793–799.
Available at: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.4141/A03-065
O’Kiely, P., Stacey, P. & Hackett, R. 2014. Conserving high moisture spring field bean (Vicia
faba L.) grains. pp. 583–586, in:.Grassland Science in Europe, EGF at 50: The future of
European grasslands, Proceedings of the 25th General Meeting of the European Grassland
Federation, Aberystwyth, Wales, 7–11 September 2014
Prandini, A., Sigolo, S., Morlacchini, M., Cerioli, C. & Masoero, F. 2011. Pea (Pisum sativum)
and faba bean (Vicia faba L.) seeds as protein sources in growing-finishing heavy pig
diets: effect on growth performance, carcass characteristics and on fresh and seasoned Parma
ham quality. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 10(4): 176–183. DOI : 10.4081/ijas.2011.e45
Prolea. 2014. Les graines: pois, féveroles, lupin. Available at: www.prolea.com.
Pursiainen, P. & Tuori, M. 2008. Effect of ensiling field bean, field pea and common vetch in
different proportions with whole crop wheat using formic acid or an inoculant on fermentation
characteristics. Grass and Forage Science, 63: 60–78. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2494.2007.00614.x
Ravindran, V., Hew, L.I., Ravindran, G. & Bryden, W.L. 2005. Apparent ileal digestibility of
amino acids in dietary ingredients for broiler chickens. Animal Science, 81(1): 85–97.
DOI: 10.1079/ASC42240085
Royer, E., Crepon, K., Granier, R., Peyronnet, C. & Vilarino, M. 2010. Effect of faba bean
(Vicia faba L.) type and incorporation rate on post-weaning and fattening performance of
pigs. Journées de la Recherches Porcine en France, 42: 77–84.
Singh, A.K. & Bhatt, B.P. 2012. Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.): A potential leguminous crop of India,
Publisher: Indian Council of Agricultural Research, ICAR Research Complex for Eastern
Region, Patna, India. 1st ed., ISBN: 978-93-5067-773-5
Singh, A.K. & Prevesh, K. 2009. Nutrient management in rainfed dryland agro-ecosystem in
the impending climate change scenario. Agricultural Situation in India. Publisher: Ministry
of Agriculture and Cooperation, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, New Delhi.
66(5): 265–269. Available at: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20103205343
66 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Smith, L. A., Houdijk, J. G. M., Homer, D. & Kyriazakis, I. 2013. Effects of dietary inclusion of
pea and faba bean as a replacement for soybean meal on grower and finisher pig performance
and carcass quality. Journal of Animal Science, 91(8): 3733–3741. DOI: 10.2527/jas.2012-6157
Somerville, D. 2002. Honeybees in faba bean pollination. Agnote. NSW Agriculture.
Available at: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/117110/bee-faba-bean-
pollination.pdf
Stoddard, F.L. 1991. Pollen vectors and pollination of faba beans in Southern Australia.
Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 42: 1173–1178.
Surra, J., Purroy, A., Muñoz, F. & Treacher, T. 1992. Lentils and faba beans in lamb diet. Small
Ruminant Research, 7(1): 43–49. DOI: 10.1016/0921-4488(92)90066-D
Tewatia, B.S., Khatta, V.K., Virk, A.S. & Gupta, P.C. 1995. Effect of formaldehyde-treated
faba beans (Vicia faba L.) on performance of lactating goats. Small Ruminant Research,
16(2): 107–111. DOI: 10.1016/0921-4488(95)00636-Y
Trommenschlager, J. M., Thénard, V., Faurie, F. & Dupont, D. 2003. Effets de différentes
sources de complémentation azotée sur les performances de vaches laitières Holstein et
Montbéliardes et les aptitudes à la coagulation des laits. Renc. Recherche Ruminants, 10: 382.
Tufarelli, V., Khan, R.U. & Laudadio, V. 2012. Evaluating the suitability of field beans as a
substitute for soybean meal in early lactating dairy cow: Production and metabolic responses.
Animal Science Journal, 83(2): 136–140. DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2011.00934.x.
Van der Poel, A.F.B., Gravendeel, S. & Boer, H. 1991. Effect of different processing methods
on tannin content and in vitro protein digestibility of faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Animal Feed
Science and Technology, 33(1–2): 49–58. DOI: 10.1016/0377-8401(91)90045-T
Virk, A.S., Khatta, V.K., Tewatia, B.S. & Gupta, P.C. 1994. Effect of formaldehyde-treated
faba beans (Vicia faba L.) on nutrient utilization and growth performance of goat kids. Small
Ruminant Research, 14(1): 19–23. DOI: 10.1016/0921-4488(94)90004-3
Yu, P., Goelema, J.O. & Tamminga, S. 2000. Using the DVE/OEB model to determine optimal
conditions of pressure toasting on horse beans (Vicia faba) for dairy feed industry. Animal
Feed Science and Technology, 86: 165–176. Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.494.1307&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Yu, P., Tamminga, S., Egan, A.R. & Christensen, D.A. 2004. Probing equivocal effects of heat
processing of legume seeds on performance of ruminants – A Review. Asian-Australasian
Journal of Animal Science, 17(6): 869–876.
Available at: http://ajas.info/upload/pdf/17-141.pdf
Zijlstra, R.T., Lopetinsky, K., Dening, B., Bégin, G.S. & Patience, J.F. 2004. Nutritional value
of zero-tannin faba beans for grower-finisher hogs. Prairie Swine Centre, Annual Research
Report: 32–33. Available at: http://www.prairieswine.com/pdf/1987.pdf
 67

Chapter 4
Pulses nes1
4.1 Hyacinth bean

COMMON NAMES
Batao (The Philippines); bataw bonavist bean, caroata chwata (Venezuela);
chicarros, dolichos bean, dolique d’Egypte (France); Egyptian kidney bean,
field bean, fiwi bean (Zambia); frijol de adorno (El Salvador); frijol jacinto
(Colombia); frijol caballo (Puerto Rico); gallinita (Mexico); hyacinth bean
(Brazil); lablab, lablab bean (Australia); lab-lab bean, lubia (Sudan); pig-ears,
poor man’s bean, poroto de Egipto (Argentina); quiquaqua, rongai dolichos,
seim bean, Tonga bean (England);wal (India); frijol jacinto, quiquaqua, caroata
chwata, poroto de Egipto, chicarros, frijol caballo, gallinita, zarandaja, judía
de egipto, frijol de adorno, carmelita, frijol caballero, tapirucusu, chaucha
japonesa (Spanish); Labe-labe, feijão cutelinho, feijão padre, feijão da India,
cumandatiá (Portuguese); Helmbohne, Indische Bohne (German); komak,
kacang komak, kacang bado, kacang biduk (Indonesian); dolico egiziano
(Italian).

DISTRIBUTION
Hyacinth bean [Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet]2 is an Old World food crop that
is thought to have originated in Africa (Cook et al., 2005) or India (Murphy
and Colucci, 1999). It has been successfully grown in the Southern United
States of America (Texas, Florida, Georgia), Puerto Rico, and as far north as
the Great Lakes and Canada. In India, hyacinth bean is a field crop mostly
confined to the peninsular region and cultivated to a large extent in Karnataka
and adjoining districts of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra.
Karnataka contributes a major share, accounting for nearly 90 percent in
terms of both area and production in the country. Karnataka state records
production of about 18 000 tonne from an area of 85 000 ha (Prabhavathi and
Khadri, 2014).

DESCRIPTION
Hyacinth bean is one of the most ancient crops among cultivated plants. It is a
bushy, semi-erect, perennial herb. It is mainly cultivated either as a pure crop or

1 Category of pulses comprising species of minor relevance at international level; nes

stands for “not elsewhere specified”.
2 Hyacinth bean was formerly treated as Dolichos lablab L. and many research results
are reported under this name.
 68 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

mixed with finger millet,

groundnut, castor, maize,
pearl millet or sorghum
in Asia and Africa. It is
a multi-purpose crop
grown for pulse, vegetable
and forage. The crop is
grown for its green pods,
while dry seeds are used
in various vegetable food
© ciat/Daniel Debouck

preparations. It is also
grown in home gardens as
annual crop or on fences
as perennial crop. It is
one of the major sources
Photo 4.1.1 Seeds of Hyacinth bean [Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet]
of protein in the diet in
southern states of India. Consumer preference varies with pod size, shape,
colour and aroma (pod fragrance). It is also grown as an ornamental plant,
mostly in United States of America for its beautiful dark-green, purple-
veined foliage with large spikes clustered with deep-violet and white pea-like
blossoms.
Hyacinth bean is a herbaceous, climbing, warm season annual or short-lived
perennial with a vigorous taproot. It has a thick, herbaceous stem that can grow
up to 90 cm, and the climbing vines can stretch up to 7.6 m from the plant
(Valenzuela and Smith, 2002). It has trifoliate, long-stemmed leaves. Each egg-
shaped leaflet widens in the middle and is 7.5–15 cm long. The surface of the
leaflet is smooth above and shorthaired below. The flowers grow in clusters on
an unbranched inflorescence in the angle between the leaf and the main stem.
It may have white, blue, or purple flowers depending on cultivar. Seedpods
are from 4 cm (Cook et al., 2005) to 10 cm long (Valenzuela and Smith, 2002),
smooth, flat, pointed, and contain 2 to 4 seeds. Seeds can be white, cream, pale
brown, dark brown, red, black or mottled, depending on cultivar.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR CULTIVATION

Hyacinth bean is remarkably adaptable to wide areas under diverse climatic
conditions, such as arid, semi-arid, sub-tropical and humid regions where
temperatures vary between 22–35 °C, lowlands and uplands and many types
of soils, and with soil pH varying between 4.4 and 7.8. It does not grow
well in saline or poorly-drained soils, but it is able to grow well under acidic
conditions (Valenzuela and Smith, 2002). It can continue to grow in drought
or shaded conditions, and grow in areas with an average annual rainfall of
630–3 050 mm (Cook et al., 2005). It is more drought resistant than other
similar legumes such as common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) or cowpea
[Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] (Maass et al., 2010), and can access soil water
Pulses nes: Hyacinth bean 69

6 feet deep. Being a legume, it can fix atmospheric nitrogen, to the extent of
170 kg/ha besides leaving enough crop residues to enrich the soils with organic
matter. It is a drought tolerant crop and grows well in drylands with limited
rainfall. The crop prefers relatively cool seasons (temperature ranging from 14
to 28 °C) with the sowing done in mid to late summer. It starts flowering in
short days (11–11.5 hour day length) and continues indeterminately in spring.
It flowers throughout the growing season.

HYACINTH BEAN SEED AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

The protein content of hyacinth bean seeds varies from 23 to 28 percent (DM
basis; Table 4.1.1), depending upon cultivars or genotypes. It contains a high
level of lysine (6.3 percent protein), but the levels of methionine and cystine
are lower. The starch content is relatively high (45 percent, DM basis) while
the fibre content is rather low (less than 10 percent, DM basis) in hyacinth
bean seeds. Adebisi and Bosch (2004) reported that hyacinth bean grown for
seeds, yields 2.5–5 tonne/ha of green pods, 0.45 tonne/ha of dry seeds when
grown as an intercrop and up to 1.5 tonne/ha of dry seeds in sole cropping.

Hyacinth bean forage

Hyacinth bean is used as forage, hay, and silage. As forage, it is often sown
with sorghum or millet. The leaf is very palatable but the stem not. Overall,
it is one of the most palatable legumes for animals (Valenzuela and Smith,
2002). Hyacinth bean forage has an average protein content of about 18
percent (DM basis), which varies from 13 to 24 percent depending on local
conditions and stage of harvest (Mudunuru et al., 2008; Linga, Lukefahr and
Lukefahr, 2003). The protein is highly degradable in the rumen. Compared
with tropical forages, hyacinth bean forage was found to have lower rumen
protein degradability than rye-grass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.), but higher
than the legume forage butterfly pea (Clitoria ternatea L.) and tropical C4
grasses (Bowen, Poppi and McLennan, 2008).

Table 4.1.1 Chemical composition of hyacinth bean and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Parameter Seeds Aerial part, fresh Hay

Crude protein 23.3–28.8 12.5–24.3 12.2–19.9

Ether extract 0.9–4.2 1.7–3.9 1.6–2.9
Crude fibre 7.6–12.1 22.0–36.1 27.7–37.1
Ash 3.3–4.8 7.1–16.2 5.6–15.2
NDF 22.5–51.4 36.0–53.8 25.5–71.8
ADF 11.5–17.1 22.8–41.4 18.0–49.9
Lignin 0.5–1.8 4.6–10.7 1.0–13.1
Calcium 0.04–0.99 0.74–2.18 0.95–2.08
Phosphorus 0.11–0.79 0.19–0.55 0.11–0.54
Notes: DM (as fed) is 87.0–93.3 percent for seeds, 12.6–40.4 percent for fresh plant and 81.6–93.9 percent for
hay.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).
70 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

The leaves contain 21 to 38 percent (DM basis) crude protein. The leaves
make excellent hay for cattle and goats, but the stem is difficult to dry, and
must be mechanically conditioned through crushing (FAO, 2012). Silage
made from a mix of hyacinth bean and sorghum raised the protein content by
roughly 11 percent with a 2:1 mixture of hyacinth bean:sorghum (FAO, 2012).
Hyacinth bean is a fast growing legume that can provide fodder in less than
3 months after sowing (ILRI, 2013). The green forage remaining after seed
harvest can be sun-dried but its protein content is lower (13–14 percent, DM
basis; Iyeghe-Erakpotobor and Muhammad, 2007). Adebisi and Bosch (2004)
reported that Hyacinth bean grown for forage yields up to 9 tonne DM/ha/year.

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Hyacinth bean seeds are reported to contain significant quantities of anti-
nutritional factors such as tannins, phytate, and trypsin inhibitors, which limit
its use in monogastric animal feeding (Murphy and Colucci, 1999). Suitable
processing of hyacinth bean seeds is required to eliminate or reduce these
anti-nutritional factors. Heat treatment is a common technique employed to
reduce or totally eliminate the anti-nutritional factors contained in legume
seeds (Tuleun and Patrick, 2007). Other methods include chemical treatment
or decortication, fermentation and sprouting .

FEEDING OF SEED AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS

Cattle
Hyacinth bean forage. Hyacinth bean forage is a valuable source of protein for
ruminants fed on low quality roughages. Juntanam et al. (2013) observed that
sorghum forage intercropped with hyacinth bean forage had a better nutritive
value than sorghum forage alone and resulted in greater LWG, DMI and milk
yield in Holstein×Friesian crossbred cows. Eduvie et al. (2002) also observed
that supplementing suckling Bunaji cows grazing natural pasture with
hyacinth bean forage (2 kg/day) increased performance and farmer incomes in
Nigeria. Abule et al. (1995) observed that increasing the level of legume forage
in the diet of crossbred calves increased the rumen degradation rate, decreased
retention time in the rumen and resulted in a higher DMI.

Hyacinth bean hay. Excellent hay can be made from hyacinth bean fodder, if
the leaves are adequately preserved (FAO, 2014). However, due to a coarse and
fibrous stem, it is difficult to dry and it has to be mechanically conditioned to
hasten curing. Crossbred cows fed hyacinth bean hay at 0.52 percent (maize
and hyacinth bean hay combined diet) or 0.85 percent (oats-vetch -hyacinth
bean hay combined diet) of body weight resulted in optimum milk production.
However, increasing the level of hyacinth bean hay resulted in no further
improvement of animal performance, probably due to an energy deficit in the
diet (Mpairwe et al., 2003a; Mpairwe et al., 2003b). Tibayungwa, Mugisha and
Nabasirye (2011) observed that supplementation with hyacinth bean hay in
Pulses nes: Hyacinth bean 71

a low-protein diet (napier grass – Pennisetum purpureum Schumach.) gave a

higher growth rate in heifers.

Hyacinth bean silage. Good quality silage can be prepared with hyacinth bean
forage alone or by mixing with other forages, such as sorghum or millet (FAO,
2014). Amole et al. (2013) found optimal results using maize + hyacinth bean
silage for growth performance of crossbred calves with 70:30 maize:hyacinth
bean (DM basis), which significantly improved animal performance during
the dry season, compared with sole maize silage and natural pasture. Silage
made from a mix of hyacinth bean and sorghum raised the protein content by
roughly 11 percent with a 2:1 mixture of hyacinth bean:sorghum (FAO, 2012).

Hyacinth bean as pasture. Hyacinth bean should not be heavily grazed.

Grazing can begin 10 weeks from planting and animals can be grazed 2 to 3
times per season, if the plant is not eaten below 25 cm (FAO, 2012). Cutting
the plant lower will result in delayed re-growth. Hungry animals should not
graze the crop as it may cause bloat, if eaten in large amounts (FAO, 2014). To
avoid bloat, supplement the animal’s diet with grasses. In Australia, hyacinth
bean is particularly valuable during late summer and autumn, as it produces
more biomass than cowpea because of its higher growth rates, has superior
tolerance to trampling and better survival and recovery after grazing (Mullen,
1999).

Sheep and goats

Hyacinth bean seeds. Hyacinth bean seeds can be included in sheep and
goat diets. hyacinth beans replaced groundnut meal as a protein source in a
concentrate mixture for kids with positive effect on roughage intake, nutrient
utilization, rumen fermentation and body growth with better N utilization
(Singh et al., 2010). In Australia, a comparison of mixtures of hyacinth beans
or lupin seeds (Lupinus angustifolius L.) with roughage (hay + oat straw) fed
to Merino lambs resulted in comparable dietary intakes but the hyacinth bean-
based diets gave lower values for digestibility, weight gain and wool growth
(the latter at 60 percent hyacinth beans inclusion) (Garcia et al., 1990).

Hyacinth bean hay. Hyacinth bean hay is valuable forage for sheep and goat,
and can supplement forage-based diets of low quality. Mupangwa et al. (2000)
observed that supplementing hyacinth bean hay to low quality Rhodes grass
hay (Chloris gayana Kunth) fed ad libitum with maize grain (100 g/day)
resulted in increased DMI (42 percent), nutrient digestibility (DM, OM and
NDF) and live-weight gain in growing goats. Compared with other forage
legumes [Centrosema pubescens Benth., Stylosanthes guianensis (Aubl.) Sw.
and Aeschynomene histrix Poir.], the mixture of hyacinth bean with Guinea
grass (Panicum maximum Jacq.) in diets for West African Dwarf goats resulted
in higher dietary metabolizable energy and organic matter digestibility (Ajayi
72 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

and Babayemi, 2008). They also reported that hyacinth bean supplementation
gave the highest nitrogen utilization and the highest weight gain.

Hyacinth bean silage. Various studies evaluated the positive effects on DMI
in sheep fed silage made from hyacinth bean and maize, sorghum or millet
(Adeyinka et al., 2008; Ngongoni et al., 2008). Babayemi et al. (2006) also
observed that silages containing equal amounts of pearl millet and hyacinth
bean, or Guinea grass and hyacinth bean, resulted in better feed intake and
digestibility in sheep and goats.

Pigs
Hyacinth beans are used in pig feeding as a source of protein and energy.
However, due to the presence of anti-nutritional factors (trypsin inhibitors,
phytic acid, and condensed tannins), their use is limited in monogastric
animals (Singh, Barneveld and Ru, 2005). Laswai et al. (1998) observed
improved nitrogen digestibility for raw (50 percent), toasted (65 percent) and
boiled beans (74 percent) in growing-finishing pigs by processing (cooking,
toasting, boiling) of seeds. The palatability of raw hyacinth bean seeds is low
to moderate in pigs, depending on the cultivar (Martens et al., 2012). Pig
diets can contain up to 10 percent of raw hyacinth bean seeds and processing
(boiling, toasting, steam pelleting) could increase the maximum recommended
level at up to 20–30 percent (Martens et al., 2012).

Poultry
Hyacinth bean seeds are considered as valuable feed for poultry. However, the
high fibre content and presence of anti-nutritional factors (tannins and trypsin
inhibitors) limit the digestibility of protein in the absence of appropriate
treatment.

Broilers. The supplementation of raw hyacinth bean seeds in the diet of

broilers depressed feed intake and growth performance (Abeke et al., 2007a;
Rasha and Abdel Ati, 2007; Abeke et al., 2008b). However, Elamin et al.
(2013) reported that thermal treatment helps in reducing the negative impact
of hyacinth bean, with a higher efficiency from boiling (optimum duration 30
min) compared with dry processing. The effect of hyacinth bean depended on
the inclusion level. Young birds seem to be much more sensitive to hyacinth
bean than finishers, in which growth was slightly reduced by supplementing
5 to 10 percent hyacinth beans in the diet (Abeke et al., 2008a; Abeke et al.,
2008b; Abeke et al., 2008c). It is recommended to use processed hyacinth bean
seeds up to 5 percent maximum in the diet of poultry.

Layers. The supplementation of boiled hyacinth bean seeds in layer diets

resulted in lower performance, with a direct effect from the level of inclusion
(Ragab et al., 2012). Although weak, this depressive effect was registered at
Pulses nes: Hyacinth bean 73

relatively low levels (5 to 7.5 percent hyacinth bean in the diet). Feed intake
was little affected by moderate inclusion levels, but the reduction in laying
egg numbers led to a lower feed efficiency. In pullets, growth performance
was slightly depressed, as with broilers (Abeke et al., 2007a; Abeke et al.,
2007b). There was no major effect of using hyacinth bean in pullets on their
subsequent laying performance, except at inclusion levels higher than 30
percent (Abeke et al., 2007b). The recommendation is to use hyacinth bean
with care in layers, as performance can decrease even at low inclusion levels.
Only processed seeds (thermal treatment) should be used. It is advised not to
exceed 5 percent unprocessed hyacinth bean seeds in diets.

SUMMARY
Hyacinth bean contains high protein (23–28 percent, DM basis) and low fibre
(8–10 percent, DM basis), but the presence of anti-nutritional factors limits
its use in monogastric diets. Heat treatment of raw seeds helps in reducing
anti-nutritional factors. Forage is palatable for animals and a valuable source
of protein (18 percent, DM basis), and good quality hay can be made from
hyacinth bean forage. Raw and processed (boiling, toasting, steam pelleting)
seeds can be included at up to 10 and 30 percent, respectively, in pig diets.
A maximum 5 percent of unprocessed seeds are recommended for inclusion
in poultry diets.

REFERENCES CITED IN SECTION 4.1

Abeke, F.O., Ogundipe, S.O., Oladele, S., Sekoni, A.A., Dafwang, I.I., Adeyinka, I.A., Oni,
O.O. & Abeke, A. 2007a. Effect of duration of cooking of Lablab purpureus beans on the
performance, organ weight and haematological parameters of shika-brown pullet chicks.
Journal of Biological Sciences, 7(3): 562–565. DOI: 10.3923/jbs.2007.562.565
Abeke, F.O., Ogundipe, S.O., Sekoni, A.A., Dafwang, I.I., Adeyinka, I.A., Oni, O.O. &
Abeke, A. 2007b. Growth and subsequent egg production performance of shika-brown
pullets fed graded levels of cooked Lablab purpureus beans. Pakistan Journal of Biological
Sciences, 10(7): 1056–1061.
Abeke, F.O., Ogundipe, S.O., Sekoni, A.A., Dafwang, I.I., Adeyinka, I.A., Oni, O.O.
& Abeke, A. 2008a. Effect of dietary levels of cooked Lablab purpureus beans on the
performance of broiler chickens. American Journal of Food Technology, 3(1): 42–49.
DOI: 10.3923/ajft.2008.42.49
Abeke, F.O., Ogundipe, S.O., Sekoni, A.A., Adeyinka, I.A., Oni, O.O., Abeke, A. & Dafwang,
I.I. 2008b. Effect of duration of cooking Lablab purpureus beans on its utilization by broiler
finishers (4–8 weeks). Asian Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 3(2): 85–91.
DOI: 10.3923/ajava.2008.85.91
Abeke, F.O., Ogundipe, S.O., Sekoni, A.A., Dafwang, I.I., Adeyinka, I.A., Oni, O.O., Nwagu,
B.I. & Abeke, A. 2008c. Response of shika brown cockerels to graded dietary levels of Lablab
purpureus beans. Asian Journal of Poultry Science, 2(1): 10–16.
DOI: 10.3923/ajpsaj.2008.10.16
74 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Abule, E., Umunna, N.N., Nsahlai, I.V., Osuji, P.O. & Alemu, Y. 1995. The effect of
supplementing teff (Eragrostis tef) straw with graded levels of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)
and lablab (Lablab purpureus) hays on degradation, rumen particulate passage and intake by
crossbred Friesian×Boran (zebu) calves. Livestock Production Science, 44(3): 221–228.
Adebisi, A.A. & Bosch, C.H. 2004. Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet. Record from PROTA4U,
Grubben, G.J.H. and Denton, O.A. (Editors). PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa/
Ressources végétales de l’Afrique tropicale), Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Adeyinka, I.A., Amodu, J.T., Kallah, M.S., Lakpini, C.A. M. & Alawa, J.P. 2008. The nutritive
value of silages made from mixtures of pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum) and Lablab
(Lablab purpureus) as feed for Yankasa rams. Asian Journal of Animal and Veterinary
Advances, 3(2): 78–84. DOI: 10.3923/ajava.2008.78.84
Ajayi, F.T. & Babayemi, O.J. 2008. Comparative in vitro evaluation of mixtures of Panicum
maximum cv Ntchisi with stylo (Stylosanthes guianensis), Lablab (Lablab purpureus), Centro
(Centrosema pubescens) and Histrix (Aeschynomene histrix). Livestock Research for Rural
Development, 20(6). Article #83. Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/6/ajay20083.htm
Amole, T. A., Oduguwa, B.O., Jolaosho, A.O., Arigbede, M.O., Olanite, J.A., Dele, P.A. &
Ojo, V.O.A. 2013. Nutrient composition and forage yield, nutritive quality of silage produced
from maize-lablab mixture. Malaysian Journal of Animal Science, 16(2): 45–61.
Babayemi, O.J., Ajayi, F.T., Taiwo, A.A., Bamikole, M.A. & Fajimi, A.K. 2006. Performance
of West African dwarf goats fed Panicum maximum and concentrate diets supplemented
with Lablab (Lablab purpureus), Leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala) and Gliricidia (Gliricidia
sepium) foliage. Nigerian Journal of Animal Production, 33(1-2): 102–111.
Bowen, M.K., Poppi, D.P. & McLennan, S.R. 2008. Ruminal protein degradability of a range of
tropical pastures. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 48(6–7): 806–810.
Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11009200.pdf
Cook, B.G., Pengelly, B.C., Brown, S.D., Donnelly, J.L., Eagles, D.A., Franco, M.A., Hanson,
J., Mullen, B.F., Partridge, I.J., Peters, M. & Schultze-Kraft, R. 2005. Tropical forages:
An interactive selection tool. CSIRO, DPI&F(Qld), CIAT and ILRI, Brisbane, Australia.
Available at: http://www.tropicalforages.info/
Eduvie, L.O., Barje, P.P., Bawa, E.K., Ehoche, O.W., Makun, H.J., Sekoni, V.O., Rekwot, P.I.,
Chiezey, N.P., Bale, J.O., Malau-Aduli, A.E.O., Osuhor, C.U., Alawa, C.B.I., Okaiyeto,
P.O. & Olorunju, S.A.S. 2002. Evaluation of forage legume Lablab purpureus as a supplement
for lactating Bunaji cows. International Atomic Energy Agency, Technical Document, IAEA-
TECDOCs, 1294: 103–109. Available at:
http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/33/032/33032977.pdf
Elamin, K.M., Abdelfatah, M.A., Abdel Atti, K.A., Malik, H.E.E. & Dousa, B.M. 2013. Effect
of feeding processed hyacinth bean (Lablab purpureus) seeds on broiler chick performance.
International Journal of Pure and Applied Biological Research and Sciences, 1(1): 9–14.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2012. Grassland species
index. Lablab purpureus. http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Gbase/DATA/Pf000047.
HTM (accessed 6 June 2012).
FAO. 2014. Grassland Index. A searchable catalogue of grass and forage legumes. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ/FAO.
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
Pulses nes: Hyacinth bean 75

Garcia, E., Ismartoyo, Slocombe, R.F., Dixon, R.M. & Holmes, J.H.G. 1990. Nutritive value
of Lablab purpureus grain for sheep and goats. Proceedings of Australian Society of Animal
Production, 18: 478.
ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). 2013. Lablab (Lablab purpureus cultivar
Rongai) for livestock feed on small–scale farms. ILRI Forage Factsheet, Nairobi, Kenya.
Iyeghe-Erakpotobor, G.T. & Muhammad, I.R. 2007. Performance of rabbit breeding does fed
concentrate and lablab combinations during pregnancy and lactation. Journal of Animal and
Veterinary Advances, 6(3): 358–363.
Available at: http://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=javaa.2007.358.363
Juntanam, T., Thiengtham, J., Sawanon, S., Tudsri, S., Siwichai, S. & Prasanpanich, S. 2013.
Effect on milk production in Thailand of silage from forage sorghum and forage sorghum
with Lablab purpureus. Kasetsart Journal: Natural Science, 47(1): 53–59.
Available at: http://kasetsartjournal.ku.ac.th/kuj_files/2013/A1303221038157053.pdf
Laswai, G.H., Lekule, F.P., Kimambo, A.E., Sarawatt, S.V. & Sundstol, F. 1998. The effect
of processing method of dolichos bean (Lablab purpureus L. Sweet) on the digestibility
and performance of growing-finishing pigs. Tanzania Journal of Agricultural Sciences,
1(2): 121–130.
Linga, S.S., Lukefahr, S.D. & Lukefahr, M.J. 2003. Feeding of Lablab purpureus forage with
molasses blocks or sugar cane stalks to rabbit fryers in subtropical south Texas. Livestock
Production Science, 80(3): 201–209. DOI: 10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00189-6
Maass, B.L., Knox, M.R., Venkatesha, S.C., Angessa, T.T., Ramme, S. & Pengelly, B.C. 2010.
Lablab purpureus - A Crop Lost for Africa? Tropical Plant Biology, 3(3): 123–135.
DOI: 10.1007/s12042-010-9046-1
Martens, S.D., Tiemann, T.T., Bindelle, J., Peters, M. & Lascano, C.E. 2012. Alternative plant
protein sources for pigs and chickens in the tropics – nutritional value and constraints: A
review. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics,
113(2): 101–123.
Available at: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hebis:34-2012092441794
Mpairwe, D.R., Sabiiti, E.N., Ummuna, N.N., Tegegne, A. & Osuji, P. 2003a. Integration of
forage legumes with cereal crops. I. Effects of supplementation with graded levels of lablab
hay on voluntary food intake, digestibility, milk yield and milk composition of crossbred
cows fed maize-lablab stover or oats-vetch hay ad libitum. Livestock Production Science,
79(2–3): 193–212.
Mpairwe, D.R., Sabiiti, E.N., Ummuna, N.N., Tegegne, A. & Osuji, P. 2003b. Integration
of forage legumes with cereal crops. II. Effect of supplementation with lablab hay and
incremental levels of wheat bran on voluntary food intake, digestibility, milk yield and
milk composition of crossbred cows fed maize-lablab stover or oats-vetch hay ad libitum.
Livestock Production Science, 79(2–3): 213–226.
Mudunuru, U., Lukefahr, S.D., Nelson, S.D. & Flores, D.O. 2008. Performance of growing
rabbits fed Lablab purpureus forage with molasses mini-blocks and restricted commercial
pellets. pp 753–757, in: Proceedings of the 9th World Rabbit Congress – June 10–13, 2008 –
Verona – Italy
Available at: https://world-rabbit-science.com/WRSA-Proceedings/Congress-2008-Verona/
Papers/N-Mudunuru.pdf
76 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Mullen, C. 1999. Summer legume forage crops: cowpeas, lablab, soybeans. NSW Department of
Primary Industries. Broadacre Crops. Agfact p. 4.2.16.
Mupangwa, J.F., Ngongoni, N.T., Topps, J.H. & Hamudikuwanda, H. 2000. Effects of
supplementing a basal diet of Chloris gayana hay with one of three protein-rich legume hays
of Cassia rotundifolia, Lablab purpureus and Macroptilium atropurpureum forage on some
nutritional parameters in goats. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 32(4): 245–256.
DOI: 10.1023/A:1005283603781
Murphy, A.M. & Colucci, P.E. 1999. A tropical forage solution to poor quality ruminant diets: A
review of Lablab purpureus. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 11(2): Article #21.
Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd11/2/colu112.htm
Ngongoni, N.T., Mwale, M., Mapiye, C., Moyo, M.T., Hamudikuwanda, H. & Titterton,
M. 2008. Research note: Inclusion of lablab in maize and sorghum silages improves sheep
performance. Tropical Grasslands, 42: 188–192.
Available at:
https://www.tropicalgrasslands.asn.au/Tropical%20Grasslands%20Journal%20archive/
PDFs/Vol_42_2008/Vol42_03_2008_pp188_192.pdf
Prabhavathi, M.K. & Khadri, S.N.E.N. 2014. Preliminary results of bowl trapping insects in
field bean (Lablab purpureus) ecosystem. Asian Journal of BioScience, 9(2): 208–212.
DOI : 10.15740/HAS/AJBS/9.2/208-212
Ragab, H. I., Abdel Ati, K. A., Kijora, C. & Ibrahim, S. 2012. Effect of different levels of the
processed Lablab purpureus seeds on laying performance, egg quality and serum parameters.
International Journal of Poultry Science, 11(2): 131–137. DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2012.131.137
Rasha, M. S. & Abdel Ati, K.A. 2007. Effect of dietary Hyacinth bean (Lablab purpureus) on
broiler chicks performance. Research Journal of Agricure and Biological Science, 3(5): 494–497.
Singh, D.N., Barneveld, R.J. van & Ru, Y.J. 2005. Digestibility of amino acids and energy
in mung bean, chickpea and lablab when fed to pigs. In: J.E. Paterson (Ed.) Manipulating
pig production X. Proceedings of 10th Biennial Conference Of the Australian Pig Science
Association, Christchurch, New Zealand, 27-30/11/2005: 268.
Singh, S., Kundu, S.S., Negi, A.S. & Pachouri, V.C. 2010. Performance of growing kids on
rations with Lablab (Lablab purpureus) grains as protein source. Livestock Research for Rural
Development, 22(5): Article #93.
Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/5/sing22093.htm
Tibayungwa, F., Mugisha, J.Y.T. & Nabasirye, M. 2011. Modelling the effect of supplementing
elephant grass with lablab and desmodium on weight gain of dairy heifers under stall-feeding
system. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(14): 3232–3239.
DOI: 10.5897/AJAR10.121
Tuleun, C.D. & Patrick, J.P. 2007. Effect of duration of cooking Mucuna utilis seed on
proximate analysis, levels of anti-nutritional factors and performance of broiler chickens.
Nigerian Journal of Animal Production, 34(1): 45–53.
Available at: http://www.nsap.org.ng/Volume34/5.pdf
Valenzuela, H. & Smith, J. 2002. Lablab. Honolulu (HI): University of Hawaii. 3 p. (Sustainable
Agriculture; SA-GM-7). DOI: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/12737
 77

4.2 Jack bean

COMMON NAMES
Brazilian broad bean, chickasaro lima bean, horse gram, jack bean,
one-eye-bean, overlock bean, sword bean (English); feijão-de-porco
(Portuguese); fève Jacques (French); frijol espada (Spanish); Jackbohne,
Madagaskarbohne, Riesenbohne (German); Kacang parang (Indonesian);
Pwa maldyòk (Haitian Creole).

DISTRIBUTION
Jack bean [Canavalia ensiformis (L.) DC.] is found in the tropical and sub-tropical
regions of West Africa, Asia, South America, India, and South Pacific. It is also
grown in the south-western states and Hawaii in the United States of America.
Canavalia Adans. is a pantropical genus that is believed to have originated in the
New World based on the large genetic diversity of species in the fossil record.

DESCRIPTION
The jack bean is an annual or weak perennial legume with climbing or bushy
growth forms. It is woody with a long tap root. The 20 cm long and 10 cm wide
leaves have three egg-shaped leaflets, wedge-shaped at the base, and tapering
towards the tip. The flowers are about 2.5 cm long and are of rose-colour,
purple, or white with a red base. It has about a 30 cm long, 3.8 cm wide, sword-
shaped seedpod. Seeds are white and smooth with a brown seed scar that is
about one-third the length of the seed. Its roots have nodules that fix nitrogen.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR CULTIVATION

Jack bean has an ability to continuously grow under severe environmental
conditions (Udedibie and Carlini, 1998), including in nutrient-depleted,
highly leached, acidic soils.
It can also grow in poor,
droughty soils, and does
not grow well in excessively
wet soil. It is drought-
resistant and resistant to
pests (FAO, 2012). It drops
its leaves under extremely
high temperatures, and
may tolerate light frosts
© CIAT/Daniel Debouck

(Florentin et al., 2004).

It tolerates a wide range
of rainfall (650–2 000
mm) evenly distributed
throughout the year; and Photo 4.2.1 Seeds of Jack bean [Canavalia ensiformis (L.) DC.]
78 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

grows best at altitudes up to 1 800 masl, temperature of 15–30 ºC, soil pH of

4.5–8.0, and tolerates a wide range of soils.

NUTRITIONAL VALUE
Jack bean is a good source of protein (23 to 34 percent, DM basis; Table 4.2.1)
and carbohydrate (55 percent, DM basis). It is also a good source of calcium,
zinc, phosphorus, magnesium, copper and nickel. Methionine and cystine are
considered limiting amino acids in jack bean (Akpapunam and Sefa-Dedeh,
1997). The whole plant, the pods and the seeds are used to feed animals.

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Jack bean seeds and foliage contain several anti-nutritional factors such
as concanavalin A (a lectin protein), canavanine (a structural analogue of
arginine) and canatoxin. Fresh forage and its by-products are generally
detrimental to livestock and monogastric animals. Affected animals have
a clear nasal discharge, become lame and cannot rise. Mucous membranes
become muddy in appearance and clear urine is passed more frequently than
usual. Heat-treatment overcomes this toxicity. Meal prepared from jack bean
seed is more palatable to cattle if molasses is added to it. For non-ruminants,
extended boiling with one or two changes of water and peeling off of the seed-
coat is required before the mature seeds are edible.
It is recommended to process (by cooking or boiling) the seeds before
feeding them to animals in order to reduce the anti-nutritional factors.
However, autoclaving alone is not sufficient to mitigate deleterious effects
of jack bean. It may thus be useful to combine soaking and autoclaving with
boiling, soaking and shaking (Belmar et al., 1999).

FEEDING OF SEED AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS

Cattle and sheep
Jack bean seeds. The supplementation of jack bean seeds at 30 percent in the
diet of cattle reduced average daily gain by 8.3 percent (Chee et al., 1992).
Paredes and Escobar (1984) reported that supplementing grazing dairy cows
with ground pods of jack beans had no depressive effect on milk yield.
Troccoli, Escobar and Gonzalez (1989) also observed lower daily live-weight
gain with jack bean seed supplementation compared with soybean meal and
maize-based diets in pre-weaning calves. Adding molasses to jack bean seed
meal may help increase its palatability (FAO, 2012). Mora, Parra and Escobar
(1986) observed lower rumen fermentation by on increasing the inclusion rate
of jack beans from 22 to 32 percent in the diet of sheep.
In the United States of America, jack bean is grown mainly as animal feed.
Average yield of jack beans range from 800 to 1 000 kg/ha, depending on
rainfall distribution. However, as high as 6 000 kg/ha has been recorded in
highly intensive agriculture (Chee et al., 1992).
Pulses nes: Jack bean 79

Table 4.2.1 Chemical composition of jack bean and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Aerial part,
Parameter Seeds Leaves, fresh Straw Pod husk
fresh

Crude protein 20.5–36.3 14.9–24.8 20.3–24.8 27.3 4.5

Ether extract 1.6–3.1 1.18–2.2 2.2 1.5
Crude fibre 2.8–12.9 27.4–45.4 34.3 48.1
Ash 2.8–9.7 6.7–14.1 11.2 9.3 3.8
NDF 32.3–36.4 32.4–62.6 32.4–38.9 46.0
ADF 13.8 17.2–43.2 27.1–27.2 32.9
Lignin 1.1–2.0 8.2–12.1 8.2–10.2 8.0
Calcium 0.10–0.32 1.48–3.34 2.54–2.82 1.41 0.30
Phosphorus 0.27–0.71 0.23–0.31 0.31 0.25 0.01
Notes: DM (as fed) is 85.3–96.0 percent for seeds, 21.0–38.5 percent for fresh plant, 21.0 percent for leaves, 89.1
percent for straw and 90.5 percent for pod husk.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).

Jack bean foliage. Fresh forage is not palatable to ruminants and is eaten only
in small amounts. However, cattle can gradually get used to it and acquire a
taste for it (Chee et al., 1992). Drying of the forage results in higher intake.
In goats, jack bean forage has been found worth considering for a dry season
feed strategy in Nigeria (Akinlade et al., 2007). Forage DM yields of up to 23
tonne/ha have been obtained in Hawaii and green fodder yields may exceed 50
tonne/ha (Chee et al., 1992). The plant has also been used as silage.

Pigs
A negative effect on average daily weight-gain was observed when feeding jack
bean seeds to growing pigs. For the processed seeds (alkali-treated, autoclaved
or extruded), the level of inclusion could be up to 15 percent (Risso and
Montilla, 1992). Michelangeli et al. (2004) also observed that diets containing
up to 20 percent toasted seeds (at 194 °C for 18 minutes) were not detrimental
to feed intake and weight gain.

Poultry
Broilers. Mendez, Vargas and Michelangeli (1998) observed that feed intake
and weight gain of broiler chickens were reduced significantly by feeding a diet
(maize + soybean meal) containing 10 percent raw jack bean seeds. However, a
diet containing toasted jack bean seeds supported adequate chick performance.
Esonu et al. (2000) observed that feeding jack bean meals (20, 25 and 30
percent of the diet) soaked with trona solution (Na2CO3.NaHCO3.2H2O at
3 percent of the weight of jack bean) significantly depressed performance of
broiler finishers at all levels. It has also been observed that raw seeds, even at
inclusion levels as low as 5 percent, have negative effects on broilers, including
decreased weight gain, increased feed conversion ratio (decreased feed use
efficiency), and alterations in the liver, pancreas and kidneys (Akinmutimi,
2006; Akanji, Ologhobo and Emiola, 2007).
80 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Layers. Udedibie (1991) reported that the optimal dietary level of boiled jack
beans for layers was about 10 percent. Udedibie (1991) also reported that
boiled jack beans along with urea-ensiling could be incorporated in layers’
diets at up to 20 percent with good results.

SUMMARY
Jack bean is a good source of protein, carbohydrate and minerals. However,
seeds and its by-products contain concanavalin A, canavanine and canatoxin
as anti-nutritional factors, which limit its use in ruminant and monogastric
diets. Processed seeds of jack bean can be included up to 15 percent in pig
diets. Raw seeds are not recommended for poultry diet; although toasted/
boiled seeds can be incorporated up to 10 percent in broiler and layer diets.
Dried jack bean forage can be used in the diet of ruminant animals.

REFERENCES CITED IN SECTION 4.2

Akanji, A.M., Ologhobo, A.D. & Emiola, I.A. 2007. Utilization of some raw tropical legume
seeds in diets of exotic adult cockerels. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 6(4): 485–
489. Available at: http://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=javaa.2007.485.489
Akinlade, J.A., Farinu, G.O., Taiwo, A.A., Aderinola, O.A., Adebayo, T.A., Ojebiyi, O.O.
& Olaniran, O.A. 2007. Agronomic and nutritive evaluation of jack beans (Canavalia
ensiformis) for fodder in the derived savannah zone of Nigeria. International Journal of
Agricultural Research, 2(12): 1059–1063. DOI: 10.3923/ijar.2007.1059.1063
Akinmutimi, A.H. 2006. Determination of optimal dietary level of inclusion of cooked sword
bean meal in broiler starter diet. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 5(8): 689–694.
Available at: http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/javaa/2006/689-694.pdf
Akpapunam, M. A. & Sefa-Dedeh, S. 1997. Jack bean (Canavalia ensiformis): Nutrition related
aspects and needed nutrition research. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 50(2): 93–99.
DOI: 10.1007/BF02436029
Belmar, R., Nava-Montero, R., Sandoval-Castro, C. & McNab, J.M. 1999. Jack bean
(Canavalia ensiformis L. DC) in poultry diets: anti-nutritional factors and detoxification
studies – a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 55(1) 37–59. DOI: 10.1079/WPS19990004
Chee, Y.K., Hacker, J.B., Ramírez, L. & Chen, C.P. 1992. Canavalia ensiformis (L.) DC. Record
from Proseabase. Mannetje, L.’t and Jones, R.M. (Editors). PROSEA (Plant Resources of
South-East Asia) Foundation, Bogor, Indonesia.
Esonu, B.O., Udedibie, A.B.I., Oguntuase, O.T. & Nduaka, U.K. 2000. Effects of trona
treatment on the feeding value of jackbean (Canavalia ensiformis) for broiler birds. Agro-
Science – Journal of Tropical Agriculture, Food, Environment and Extension, 1(2): 14–18.
DOI: 10.4314/as.v1i2.1451
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2012. Grassland species
index. Canavalia ensiformis. Rome.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Gbase/DATA/PF000012.HTM
Pulses nes: Jack bean 81

Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ/FAO.

Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
Florentin, M.A., Penalva, M., Calegari, A. & Derpsch, R. 2004. Green manure/cover crops and
crop rotation in the no-tillage system on small farms. Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock of
the Republic of Paraguay and German Technical Cooperation.
Mendez, A., Vargas, R.E. & Michelangeli, C. 1998. Effects of Concanavalin A, fed as a
constituent of Jack bean (Canavalia ensiformis L.) seeds, on the humoral immune response
and performance of broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 77(2): 282–289.
Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9495494
Michelangeli, C., Pérez, G., Méndez, A. & Sivoli, L. 2004. Effect of toasting Canavalia ensiformis
seeds on productive performance of growing pigs. Zootecnia Tropical, 22(1): 87–100.
Mora, M., Parra, R. & Escobar, A. 1986. Canavalia ensiformis: its utilization in feeding of
ruminants. Preliminary results. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomia de la Universidad
Central de Venezuela, 35: 295–311.
Paredes, L. & Escobar, A. 1984. Canavalia (pods) in rations for cows on pasture. Pp. 42–43,
in: Informe anual ‘83, Instituto de Produccion Animal, Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Risso, J.F. & Montilla, J.J. 1992. Meal of Canavalia ensiformis seeds given raw, alkali treated,
autoclaved or extruded in diets for growing pigs. Archivos Latinoamericanos de Nutricion,
42(3): 268–274.
Troccoli, N., Escobar, A. & González, A. 1989. Effect of ethanol on the toxicity of Canavalia
ensiformis given to calves during the preweaning period. Informe anual, Universidad Central
de Venezuela, Facultad de Agronomia, Instituto de Produccion Animal, 45–46.
Udedibie, A.B.I. & Carlini, C.R. 1998. Questions and answers to edibility problem of the
Canavalia ensiformis seeds – A review. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 74(2): 95–106.
DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8401(98)00141-2
Udedibie, A.B.I. 1991. Relative effects of heat and urea-treated jackbean (Canavalia ensiformis)
and swordbean (Canavalia gladiata) on the performance of laying hens. Livestock Research
for Rural Development, 3(3): Article #21.
Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd3/3/nigeria1.htm
 83

4.3 Winged bean

COMMON NAMES
Asparagus pea, calamismis, four-angled bean, four-cornered bean, Goa bean,
goabohne, Haricot dragon, Manila bean, Mauritius bean, pois carré, princess
pea, or winged bean.

DISTRIBUTION
The origin of winged bean [Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (L.) DC.] remains
in dispute. At least four sites have been suggested as possibilities: Papua
New Guinea, Mauritius, Madagascar (the Malagasy Republic), and India.
The centres of greatest diversity of the species are Papua New Guinea and
Indonesia, although numerous new varients have recently been discovered in
Thailand and Bangladesh.
The winged bean is a tropical legume plant native to New Guinea. It is
a poor man’s crop that, until recently, was found mainly in rural areas of
Papua New Guinea and Southeast Asia. It grows abundantly in hot, humid
equatorial countries, from the Philippines and Indonesia to India, Myanmar,
Malaysia, Thailand and Sri Lanka. It is widely known, yet grown on a small
scale in Southeast Asia and Papua New Guinea. The winged bean is an under-
utilized species but has the potential to become a major multi-purpose food
crop in the tropics of Asia, Africa and Latin America (Khan, 1982).

TAXONOMY
The winged bean is a species in the genus Psophocarpus Neck. ex DC., a genus
of 6–9 varying species (Khan, 1982). All but the winged bean appear to be
indigenous to Africa. Only the species Psophocarpus tetragonolobus and P.
palustris have been used for food. The other species have never been cultivated.
Even P. palustris remains a semi-wild plant, used in West Africa mainly in
times of famine. Species in the Psophocarpus genus are perennial herbs grown
as annuals (Hymowitz and Boyd, 1977). Psophocarpus species are capable of
climbing by twining their stems around a support. Species in the Psophocarpus
genus have tuberous roots and pods with wings (NRC, 1975).

DESCRIPTION
Some researchers hailed the winged bean as “a possible soybean [Glycine
max (L.) Merr.] for the tropics” (Berry, 1977; Garcia and Palmer, 1980; NRC,
1981). Currently, winged bean is appreciated by farmers and consumers in
the Asian region for its variety of uses and disease tolerance. Winged bean
is nutrient-rich, and all parts of the plant are edible. Leaves can be eaten like
spinach, flowers can be used in salads, tubers can be eaten raw or cooked, and
seeds can be used in similar ways as the soybean.
 84 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

The winged bean plant grows

as a vine with climbing stems
and leaves, 3–4 m in height. It
is a herbaceous perennial, but
can be grown as an annual. It
is generally taller and notably
larger than the common bean.
The bean pod is typically 15–22
cm long and has four wings with
© CIAT/Daniel Debouck

frilly edges running lengthwise.

The skin is waxy and the flesh
partially translucent in the
young pods. When the pod is
Photo 4.3.1 Seeds of winged bean [Psophocarpus fully ripe, it turns an ash-brown
tetragonolobus (L.) DC.] colour and splits open to release
the seeds. Winged beans contain
a high level of protein (30–39 percent, DM basis; Table 4.3.1), which is similar
to that of soybean.
The shape of winged bean leaves ranges from ovate, deltoid, ovate-
lanceolate, lanceolate to long lanceolate (Khan, 1982). The leaves of winged
bean also vary in colour, appearing as various shades of green. Stem colour is
commonly green, but can vary from shades of green to shades of purple. Pod
shape is most commonly rectangular, but can also appear flat. Pod colour may
also vary from shades of cream, green, pink to purple. The exterior surface of
the pod also varies in texture. Pods can appear smooth or rough depending
on genotype. Seed shape is often round, but oval and rectangular seeds are
also found. Seed colour changes based on environmental factors and storage
conditions. Seeds may appear white, cream, brown or dark tan in appearance.
The shapes of winged bean tuberous roots also show variation.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR CULTIVATION

Winged bean thrives in hot humid weather, but it is an adaptable plant. It
can also adjust to the climate of the equatorial tropics (Khan, 1982), but is
susceptible to waterlogging and moisture stress. Ideal growing temperature is
reported to be 25 ºC. Lower temperature is reported to suppress germination,
and extremely high temperatures are detrimental to the yield of the plant.
Moderate variations in the growing conditions of winged bean can result
in variations in yield. It is reported that growing winged bean in lower than
favourable temperatures can increase tuber production. It is also reported
that leaf expansion rate is higher in a warmer climate. In addition to adequate
temperature, winged bean requires sufficient soil moisture at all stages of
growth to produce high yields (Khan, 1982). Although the winged bean plant
is indigenous to the humid tropics, it is possible for the plant to yield in drier
Pulses nes: Winged bean 85

Table 4.3.1 Chemical composition of winged bean and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Parameter Un-ripe seeds Ripe seeds Immature pods Leaves Tubers

Crude protein 10.7 39.0 4.3 7.6 15.0

Ether extract 10.4 20.4 3.4 2.5 1.1
Crude fibre 2.5 16.0 3.1 4.2 17.0
Ash 1.0 4.9 1.9 2.9 1.70
Calcium 0.37 0.33 0.26 0.04
Phosphorus 0.61 0.07 0.10 0.06
Notes: DM (as fed) is 12.0 percent for un-ripe seeds, 76.0 percent for ripe seeds, 24.0 percent for immature
pods, 15.0 percent for leaves, and 35.0 percent for tubers.
Source: NRC (1981).

climates with adequate irrigation (NRC, 1975). High yield has been recorded
when the maturity of the plant and the drier part of the growing season
correspond.

PRODUCTION OF SEED, POD AND TUBER

The winged bean is capable of producing more than 2 tonne of seeds/ha
(Vietmeyer, 1978). Pod yields for the green (immature) pods harvested as
a fresh vegetable was reported up to 35 tonne/ha. Tubers yield has been
recorded to be 11.7 tonne/ha when grown in the traditional manner by village
farmers in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea (Khan, 1980).

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Winged bean seeds are known to contain several anti-nutritional factors such
as trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors (NRC, 1981). Other anti-nutritive
factors are amylase inhibitors, phytohaemagglutinins, cyanogenic glycosides,
and perhaps saponins (Claydon, 1978). The winged bean seed-inhibitor
activity can be safely eliminated only by using moist heat; for example by
steaming the seeds in an autoclave at 130 °C for 10 minutes. The same result
can be achieved by soaking seeds for approximately 10 hours and then boiling
them for 30 minutes.

WINGED BEAN SEED AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

Winged bean seeds
The winged bean seed has high protein content (32–39 percent, DM basis;
Table 4.3.1) and the amino acid composition of winged bean is similar to
that of soybean, except that methionine and cysteine are limiting (Wyckoff,
Mar and Vohra, 1983). Heat treatment (autoclaved at 120 ºC for 45 minutes)
significantly improved amino acid digestibility of winged bean. However,
overheating (90 minutes of autoclaving) destroyed lysine, cysteine and
arginine of winged bean (Mutia and Uchida, 1994).
To the authors’ knowledge, no study is available on feeding winged bean or
its by-products to mammalian livestock.
86 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Poultry
Benito et al. (1982) reported that replacing soybean (0, 19, 44, and 74 percent
on protein basis) with autoclaved winged bean (submerged in water for 30
minutes at 121 ºC) had no adverse effect on metabolizable energy, nitrogen
retention, broiler performance and feed conversion. However, replacing
soybean with autoclaved winged bean at 75 and 100 percent decreased
metabolizable energy and led to poorer broiler performance. Smith, Ilori
and Onesirosan (1984) also reported high nutritional merit of the winged
bean, and suggested that farm processed winged bean can effectively partially
replace soybean and groundnut cake in broiler diets.
The dry pod residue left after the seeds have been threshed out has 10
percent protein and has been tested satisfactorily in animal feeds. In Thailand,
this pod residue is being used successfully as a medium for growing straw
mushrooms.

SUMMARY
Winged beans contain a high level of protein (32–39 percent, DM basis) with
an amino acid composition similar to that of soybean. It contains several
anti-nutritional factors such as trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors, amylase
inhibitors, phytohaemagglutinins, cyanogenic glycosides, and saponins.
Steaming and soaking of seeds help reduce these anti-nutritional factors.
Autoclaved winged bean can partially replace soybeans in broiler diets. More
research is required to optimize the level of feeding seeds and by-products in
the ration of ruminant and monogastric diets.

REFERENCES CITED IN SECTION 4.3

Benito, O. De Lumen, Amelia, L., Gerpacio & Vohra, P. 1982. Effects of winged bean
(Psophocarpus tetragonolobus) meal on broiler performance. Poultry Science, 61(6): 1099–
1106. Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.879.5138&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Berry, S.K. 1977. Characteristics of the seed oil of the four-angled bean, Psophocarpus
tetragonolobus (L.) DC. Malaysian Applied Biology, 6: 33–38.
Claydon, A. 1978. Winged bean – a food with many uses. Plant Foods for Man, 2(2): 203–224.
Garcia, V.V. & Palmer, J.K. 1980. Proximate analysis of five varieties of winged beans,
Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (L.) DC. International Journal of Food Science and Technology,
15(5): 469–476. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1980.tb00965.x
Hymowitz, T. & Boyd, J. 1977. Origin, ethnobotany and agricultural potential of the winged
bean - Psophocarpus tetragonolobus. Economic Botany, 31(2): 180–188.
Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4253831
Khan, T. 1982. Winged bean production in the Tropics. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Khan, T.N. 1980. Variation, ecology and cultural practices of the winged bean. In: The Winged
Bean. Papers presented in the First International Symposium on Developing the Potentials of
Pulses nes: Winged bean 87

the Winged Bean, January 1978, Manila. Sponsored by the Philippine Council for Agriculture
and Resources Research, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines.
Mutia, R. & Uchida, S. 1994. Effect of heat treatment on nutritional value of winged bean
(Psophocarpus tetragonolobus) as compared to soybean amino acid digestibility. Asian-
Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 7(1): 113–117. DOI: 10.5713/ajas.1994.113
NRC (National Research Council). 1975. Underexploited Tropical Plants with Promising
Economic Value. Second Edition. National Research Council (USA). National Academy
Press. Washington, DC.
NRC (National Research Council). 1981. Winged bean: A high protein crop for the tropics.
Second Edition, National Research Council, National Academy Press. Washington, DC.
Smith, O.B., Ilori, J.O. & Onesirosan, P. 1984. The proximate composition and nutritive value
of the winged bean Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (L.) DC for broilers. Animal Feed Science
and Technology, 11(3): 231–237. DOI: 10.1016/0377-8401(84)90066-X
Vietmeyer, N.D. 1978. Advances in Winged Bean Research: Trip Report. Report on the First
International Symposium on Developing the Potentials of the Winged Bean, January 1978,
Los Banos, Philippines. (Copies available from N. Yietmeyer, JH215, National Academy of
Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC.
Wyckoff, S., Mak, T.K. & Vohra, P. 1983. The nutritional value of autoclaved and ammonia-
treated winged beans [(Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (L) DC.] for Japanese Quail. Poultry
Science, 62(2): 359–364. DOI: 10.3382/ps.0620359
 89

4.4 Guar bean

COMMON NAMES
Calcutta lucerne, cluster bean, clusterbean, guar, Siam bean (English); guar,
goma guar (Spanish); cyamopse à quatre ailes (French); guarplant, guarstruik,
guarboon (Dutch); Guarbohne (German).

DISTRIBUTION
Actual place of origin is not known, but it is believed that guar bean
[Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.] originated in the hot and arid areas of
Africa or the deserts of Middle East. It was domesticated in India by the Arab
people (Ecoport, 2010). It is mainly grown in the semi-arid and sub-tropical
areas of North and North-West India (Rajahstan) and East and South-East
Pakistan. It later spread to other Asian countries, including Indonesia,
Malaysia and the Philippines, and is now grown in many parts of the drier
tropics and subtropics.

DESCRIPTION
Guar bean is an upright, coarse-growing summer annual legume known for
its drought resistance. Its deep tap roots reach moisture deep below the soil
surface. Most of the improved varieties of guar bean have glabrous (smooth,
not hairy) leaves, stems and pods. Plants have single stems, fine branching
or basal branching (depending on the cultivar) and grow 45 to 100 cm tall.
Racemes are distributed on the main stem and lateral branches. Pods are
generally 2.5 to 10 cm long and contain 5 to 12 seeds each. Seeds vary from
dull-white to pink to light grey or black. Guar bean yields up to 45 tonne/
ha of green fodder, 6–9 tonne/ha of green pods and 0.7–3 tonne/ha of seeds
(Ecocrop, 2010; Ecoport, 2010).

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR

CULTIVATION
Guar bean is a photosensitive
crop. It grows in specific
climatic conditions that provide
a soil temperature of around
25 °C for proper germination.
It is mostly grown in arid,
unirrigated areas, and does not
require much fertilizer to grow.
It is a rainfed monsoon crop,
© NDDB

requiring 200–400 mm of rain

in 3–4 spells and is harvested Photo 4.4.1 Plants of guar bean [Cyamopsis tetragonoloba
in autumn. Guar bean is an (L.) Taub.] cultivated for fodder
90 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

annual, summer legume and requires warm weather and a relatively long
growing season of 20–25 weeks. The crop is harvested in early winter. It is
sown immediately after first monsoon showers say in July and harvested
around November each year. Heavy rains, producing waterlogged condition
or more compact soils disturb its root system because of its surface feeding
nature, and reduces nitrogen fixing bacterial activity.
The guar bean prefers a well-drained sandy loam soil. It can tolerate saline
and moderately alkaline soils, with pH ranging between 7.5 and 8.0. Heavy clay
soils, poor in nodulation and bacterial activity are not suitable for this crop.
Soils with medium to light constituents without excessive moisture are suitable
for its cultivation. Even soils with poor fertility and depleted plant nutrients are
suitable for growing guar bean as a green manure crop. Pasture lands receiving
little care can also be used for growing guar bean mixed with grasses.

NUTRITIONAL VALUE
Guar bean meal is the main by-product of guar bean gum production. It is a
mixture of germs and hulls with circa 25 percent germs and 75 percent hulls
(Lee et al., 2004). Guar bean meal is a protein-rich material containing about 40
to 45 percent protein (DM basis; Table 4.4.1). It is used as a feed ingredient, but
may require processing to improve palatability and remove anti-nutritional
factors. In addition to the regular guar bean meal, some Indian manufacturers
sell a high-protein guar bean meal called korma, which contains 50–55 percent
protein (DM basis). Guar bean chuni contains about 30–35 percent protein
(DM basis), depending on the ratio of germs and hulls. Guar bean meal and
korma are usually suitable for ruminants and to some extent can replace other
protein sources, but their use in monogastrics is more limited.

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Guar bean meal contains various anti-nutritional factors such as trypsin
inhibitors, saponin, haemagglutinins, hydrocyanic acid and polyphenols
(Gutiérrez et al., 2007). However, Lee et al. (2004) observed that anti-trypsic
activity of guar bean meal was found to be lower than that in heat-treated
soybean meal, and therefore caused no adverse effects in poultry. Presence of
gum residue (12 percent) in guar bean meal increases viscosity in the intestine
and reduces digestibility and growth (Lee, Bailey and Cartwright, 2009). The
large saponin content of guar bean seed (up to 13 percent, DM basis) could
have both a negative anti-nutritional effect and a positive anti-microbial
activity (Hassan et al., 2010). Heat treatments (autoclaving) and enzyme
treatment of guar bean meal improved feed utilization (Lee et al., 2004, Lee
et al., 2005; Lee, Bailey and Cartwright, 2009). Autoclaving enhanced the
stickiness of droppings, whereas addition of hemicellulase prevented it (Patel
and McGinnis, 1985).
Pulses nes: Guar bean 91

Table 4.4.1 Chemical composition of guar bean and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Guar Forage, Crop
Parameter Seeds Guar meal Forage, dry
korma fresh residue

Crude protein 28.0 40.0–44.3 55.1–56.6 16.0 23.9 8.8

Ether extract 3.7 4.2–7.5 4.3–5.1 1.9 2.2 1.3
Crude fibre 6.9 7.2–16.1 6.3–8.0 22.7 11.8 32.9
Ash 5.0 4.7–8.8 5.3–5.5 17.0 15.5 7.9
NDF 20.5–21.0 25.6
ADF 12.9
Lignin 0.3 5.3
Calcium 0.45–1.26 1.80 2.42 1.17
Phosphorus 0.46–0.98 0.10 0.27 0.27
Notes: DM (as fed) is 92.4 percent for seeds, 93.4–96.7 percent for guar bean meal, 92.0 percent for guar bean
korma, 21.5 percent for fresh forage, 85.8 percent for dry forage, and 91 percent for crop residues.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).

GUAR BEAN SEED AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

Cattle
Guar bean seeds. Based on the protein and in vitro DM digestibility, guar
bean seeds can efficiently replace other protein meals, such as cottonseed, in
the ration of livestock animals (Rao and Northup, 2009). Tiwari and Krishna
(1990) reported that growth rate and nutrient utilization were adequate with
a diet containing wheat straw and overnight boiled (slow heat) guar bean seed
in the ratio 60:40 (ME basis).

Guar bean meal. In dairy cows, lower palatability has been reported when
more than 5 percent guar bean meal was included in the diet. However, dairy
cows and heifers fed rations containing 10–15 percent guar bean meal became
accustomed to its odour and taste after a few days. Raw guar bean meal can
constitute up to 25 percent of cattle rations, whereas, heat treated guar bean
meal can be used as the sole protein component in cattle diets (Göhl, 1982).
A field study conducted by Garg et al. (2003) in India revealed that feeding
formaldehyde treated (to reduce degradability of protein in the rumen) guar
bean meal (1.0 kg/head/day) resulted in improved yields of milk, up by 7.3
percent and milk fat, up by 4.5 percent, compared with feeding untreated guar
bean meal in crossbred cows.
Various studies showed that replacing guar bean meal at 50 percent of
metabolizable energy, and protein supplement with groundnut meal in
growing male buffalo calves gave a better growth rate and feed conversion
efficiency (Mandal et al., 1989a; Mandal et al., 1989b). Lohan et al. (1989) also
observed a positive response with respect to sperm motility, plasma luteinizing
hormone and testosterone on feeding guar bean meal, compared with animals
fed groundnut meal.
92 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Guar bean crop residues. Patel and Shukla (1972) reported that guar bean crop
residues containing the stems, leaves and immature pods left after threshing
can be fed to lactating cows, and their nutritive value is comparable with that
of pigeon pea .

Sheep and goats

Guar bean seeds. Inclusion of crushed guar bean seeds (150 g/head/day) in
the diet of Marwari ewes grazing sewan grass (Lasiurus scindicus Henrard)
increased DMI and digestibility (Thakur, Mali and Patnayak, 1985), suggesting
that feeding 150 g crushed guar bean seeds has potential for improving DMI
and DM digestibility, without any adverse effects on health.

Guar bean meal. Huston and Shelton (1971) observed that diets containing
guar bean meal had reduced growth rates of lambs in the initial period of the
study, but animals tended to overcome initial, poor performance and make
compensatory gains toward the end of the feeding period. Rohilla, Khem
Chand and Jangid (2007) also observed better meat yield in sheep fed diets
containing 50:50 guar bean meal and maize (ad libitum diets alone or ad
libitum diets combined with grazing). Mathur and Mathur (1989) reported
that formaldehyde-treated guar bean meal supplemented with urea resulted in
higher growth than raw or unsupplemented guar bean meal in Magra lambs.

Guar bean hay. Patnayak et al. (1979) reported that guar bean hay prepared
at flowering stage was able to maintain the body weight of rams for 45 days
with a DMI of 2.44 percent BW. Similarly, Pachauri and Upadhyaya (1986)
reported that, in goats, guar bean hay prepared at pod formation was also
able to maintain intake and digestibity of nutrients, when fed together with
crushed oats. Feeding guar bean hay (2 kg/day/head) improved body weight
and milk yield in goats, and the authors concluded that guar bean hay could be
used to improve the overall productivity of goats (Zahid et al., 2012).

Guar bean crop residues. Guar bean crop residues (straw) can be incorporated
up to 70 percent in the maintenance ration without any adverse effects (Singh
et al., 2008). Bhakat, Saini and Pathak (2009) reported that guar bean straw can
also be used for feeding camels.

Pigs
Tanksley and Osbourn (1967) observed lower growth rate in growing pigs,
fed a diet containing 7.5 percent guar bean meal, compared with the control
diet (sorghum + soybean meal). There was no negative effect on growth
performance in growing-finishing pigs fed a diet with 6 percent guar bean
meal. However, Heo et al. (2009) observed reduced growth rate at the 12
percent inclusion level, without affecting pork quality.
Pulses nes: Guar bean 93

Poultry
Broilers. Conner (2002) observed that an inclusion rate of 2.5 percent untreated
guar bean meal can support growth, feed consumption, feed:grain ratio, and
meat yield equivalent to those of a maize+soybean-meal diet. Lee et al. (2005)
also reported that guar bean meal can be included at 2.5 percent in the diet of
broilers, without adversely affecting chicken growth to 6 weeks of age. Even
for treated guar bean meal, the feeding threshold should remain as low as 5
percent to avoid problems (Lee et al., 2005). Hassan et al. (2011) reported that
inclusion of 5 percent guar bean germ in the diet of chicks gave significantly
higher body weight gain, higher daily feed intake, and improved feed efficiency
compared with the control diet, while chicks fed on 25 percent guar bean germ
diets showed significantly decreased values for all these parameters. It has been
observed that guar bean meal can be fed to chicks at levels up to 6 percent of
the diet without negative effects on growth, feed intake and feed conversion
ratio (Mohammad et al., 2012). A partial replacement of soybean meal with
guar bean korma did not affect body weight and carcass traits of commercial
broiler chickens (Mishra et al., 2013).

Layers. Gutiérrez et al. (2007) observed no significant differences when fed

2.5 or 5 percent guar bean germ or meal on hen-day egg production or feed
consumption. Significant increase in egg weight, total egg mass per hen, and
feed conversion ratio were observed in hens fed 2.5 percent guar bean meal,
whereas they remained unchanged for diets containing either level of guar
bean germ or 5 percent guar bean meal. Feeding either level of guar bean germ
or meal did not affect shell quality, Haugh units (calculated as Haugh unit =
100 × log (H + 7.57 − 1.7W0.37); where H is albumin height (mm) and W is
egg weight in g; Panda, 1996), or egg yolk colour. The results showed that
both guar bean germ and meal can be fed to high-producing laying hens at
up to 5 percent without adverse effects on laying hen performance. Hossein
(2012) concluded that adding 5 percent guar bean meal to laying hens’ diet
has adverse effects on their productive performance but it seems that hens can
tolerate guar bean meal in the diet up to 2.5 percent with no detrimental effects
on egg production, egg mass and feed efficiency.

SUMMARY
Guar meal and guar korma are protein-rich by-products of the guar gum
industry, and used in monogastric and ruminant diets. Autoclaving of guar
meal improves its inclusion level. Raw guar meal can constitute up to 25 per-
cent of cattle rations, whereas, heat-treated guar meal can be used as the
sole protein component in cattle diet. A maximum of 5 percent of raw guar
meal can be included in pig diets. Raw and heat-treated guar meal can be
included up to 2.5 and 5 percent levels, respectively, in poultry diet.
94 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

REFERENCES CITED IN SECTION 4.4

Bhakat, C., Saini, N. & Pathak, K.M.L. 2009. Comparative study on camel management
systems for economic sustainability. Journal of Camel Practice and Research, 16(1): 77–81.
Conner, S.R. 2002. Characterization of guar meal for use in poultry rations. PhD Dissertation.
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Ecocrop. 2010. Ecocrop database. FAO. Available at: http://ecocrop.fao.org/ecocrop/srv/en/home
Ecoport. 2010. Ecoport database. FAO. Available at: http://www.eecoport.org
Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ/FAO.
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
Garg, M.R., Sherasia, P.L., Bhanderi, B.M., Gulati, S.K. & Scott, T.W. 2003. Effect of feeding
formaldehyde treated guar meal on milk production in crossbred cows. Indian Journal of
Animal Nutrition, 20(3): 334–338.
Göhl, B. 1982. Les aliments du bétail sous les tropiques. FAO, Division de Production et Santé
Animale, Rome, Italy.
Gutiérrez, O., Zhang, C., Cartwright, A.L., Carey, J.B. & Bailey, C.A. 2007. Use of guar
by-products in high-production laying hen diets. Poultry Science, 86(6): 1115–1120.
DOI: 10.1093/ps/86.6.1115
Hassan, I.Y., Marium, S.A., Ahmed, D.E., Khojali, M.E. & Omer, M.E. 2011. The effect of
additional graded levels of guar germ (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) on broilers diet. Journal of
Science and Technology, 12(3): 33–37.
Hassan, S.M., Haq, A.U., Byrd, J.A., Berhow, M.A., Cartwright, A.L. & Bailey, C.A. 2010.
Haemolytic and antimicrobial activities of saponin-rich extracts from guar meal. Food
Chemistry, 119(2): 600–605. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.06.066
Heo, P.S., Lee, S.W., Kim, D.H., Lee, G.Y., Kim, K.H. & Kim, Y.Y. 2009. Various levels of guar
meal supplementation on growth performance and meat quality in growing-finishing pigs.
Journal of Animal Science, 87(2): 144.
Hossein, R.S. 2012. Dietary inclusion of guar meal supplemented by β-mannanase I) Evaluation
performance of laying hens. Global Veterinaria, 9(1): 60–66.
Huston, J.E. & Shelton, M. 1971. An evaluation of various protein concentrates for growing
finishing lambs. Journal of Animal Science, 32(2): 334–338. DOI: 10.2527/jas1971.322334x
Lee, J.T., Bailey, C.A. & Cartwright, A.L. 2009. In vitro viscosity as a function of guar meal
and beta-mannanase content of feeds. International Journal of Poultry Science, 8(8): 715–719.
Lee, J.T., Connor-Appleton, S., Bailey, C.A. & Cartwright, A.L. 2005. Effects of guar meal
by-product with and without beta-mannanase hemicell on broiler performance. Poultry
Science, 84(8): 1261–1267.
Lee, J.T., Connor-Appleton, S., Haq, A.U., Bailey, C.A. & Cartwright, A.L. 2004. Quantitative
measurement of negligible trypsin inhibitor activity and nutrient analysis of guar meal
fractions. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 52(21): 6492–6495.
Lohan, I.S., Kaker, M.L., Singal, S.P. & Mandal, A.B. 1989. Sperm motility and changes in
certain plasma sex hormones in growing male buffaloes fed on guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba)
meal. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 6(3): 249–251.
Mandal, A.B., Aggarwal, S.P., Khirwar, S.S. & Vidya Sagar. 1989a. Effect of clusterbean
(Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) meal on nutrient utilization and thyroid hormones in buffalo
calves. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 6(3): 187–193.
Pulses nes: Guar bean 95

Mandal, A.B., Khirwar, S.S., Gopal Krishna & Vidya Sagar. 1989b. Utilization of clusterbean-
meal in rations of growing buffalo calves. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences., 59(7): 851–859.
Mathur, O.P. & Mathur, C.S. 1989. Feeding of protected protein and urea supplementation for
enhanced growth and feed utilization in Magra lambs. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition,
6(3): 274–278.
Mishra, A., Sarkar, S.K., Ray, S. & Haldar, S. 2013. Effects of partial replacement of soybean
meal with roasted guar korma and supplementation of mannanase on performance and carcass
traits of commercial broiler chickens. Veterinary World, 6(9): 693–697.
Mohammad, A.G., Dastar, B., Nameghi, A.H., Tabar, G.H. & Mahmoud, S.S. 2012. Effects
of guar meal with and without–mannanas enzyme on performance and immune response of
broiler chicks. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 3(S): 2785–2793.
Pachauri, V.C. & Upadhyaya, R.S. 1986. Nutritive value of clusterbean (Cyamopsis
tetragonoloba) hay as affected by supplementation of oat grain in goats. Indian Journal of
Animal Sciences, 56(1): 154–155.
Panda, P.C. 1996. Textbook on Egg and Poultry Technology. Vikas Publishing House, Delhi,
India.
Patel, B.M. & Shukla, P.C. 1972. Effect of supplementation of carbohydrate feeds to legume
roughages on their nutritive values. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 42(10): 767–771.
Patel, M. B. & McGinnis, J. 1985. The effect of autoclaving and enzyme supplementation of guar
meal on the performance of chicks and laying hens. Poultry Science, 64: 1148–1156.
Patnayak, B. C., Mohan, M., Bhatia, D. R. & Hajra, A. 1979. A note on the nutritional value
of cowpea, moth (dewgram) and clusterbean fodders fed as hay to sheep. Indian Journal of
Animal Sciences, 49(9):746–748.
Rao, S.C. & Northup, B.K. 2009. Capabilities of four novel warm-season legumes in the
southern Great Plains: grain production and quality. Crop Science, 49(3): 1103–1108.
DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2008.08.0469
Rohilla, P.P., Khem Chand & Jangid, B.L. 2007. Economic mutton and wool production from
Marwari sheep. Indian Veterinary Journal, 84(2): 188–190.
Singh, N., Arya, R.S., Sharma, T., Dhuria, R.K. & Garg, D.D. 2008. Effect of feeding of
clusterbean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) straw based complete feed in loose and compressed
form on rumen and haemato-biochemical parameters in Marwari sheep. Veterinary
Practitioner, 9(2): 110–115.
Tanksley, T.D.Jr & Osbourn, D.J. 1967. Use of processed guar meal in swine rations. Journal
of Animal Science, 26(1): 216.
Thakur, S.S., Mali, P.C. & Patnayak, B.C. 1985. Evaluation of sewan (Lasiurus sindicus) pasture
with or without supplementation of crushed clusterbean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba). Indian
Journal of Animal Sciences, 55(8): 711–714.
Tiwari, S.P. & Krishna, G. 1990. Effect of boiled guar [Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub] seed
feeding on growth rate and utilization of nutrients in buffalo calves. Indian Journal of Animal
Production and Management, 6(3): 119–126.
Zahid, M.S., Majid, A., Rischkowsky, B., Khan, S., Hussain, A., Shafeeq, S., Gurmani, Z.A.,
Munir, M., Rahman, S. & Iimran, M. 2012. Improved goats milk and meat production
feeding guar hay in Marginal rainfed areas of Pothwar region of Pakistan. Sarhad Journal of
Agriculture, 28(3): 477–483.
 97

4.5 Velvet bean

COMMON NAMES
Bengal bean, buffalo bean, cabeca-de-frade, chiporro, cowage, cowhage,
cowitch, fava-coceira, Florida velvet bean, itchy bean, kapikachhu, krame,
lacuna bean, Lyon bean, Mauritius velvet bean, mucuna, Nescafé, pica-pica,
pó de mico, velvet bean, Yokohama velvet bean (English); pois mascate, dolic,
haricot de Floride, haricot de Maurice, pois velus, haricot pourpre, pois du
Bengale (French); grano de terciopelo, fríjol terciopelo, picapica, chiporro,
nescafe, mucuna, fogaraté, café incasa, café listo, fríjol abono (Spanish);
feijão-da-flórida, po de mico, fava coceira (Portuguese); fluweelboon (Dutch);
Juckbohne (German); pwa grate (Haitian creole); Kara benguk [Indonesian].

DISTRIBUTION
Velvet bean [Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC.] is native to areas in southern China,
and eastern India, where it was at one time widely cultivated as a green
vegetable crop (Duke, 1981). Now, it is widely distributed to other tropical
areas of the world such as the West Indies, tropical America, the Pacific
Islands, and the United States of America. It was introduced to the southern
states of the United States of America in the late nineteenth century and from
there, it was re-introduced to the tropics in the early part of the twentieth
century (Eilittä and Carsky, 2003).

DESCRIPTION
Velvet bean is a herbaceous vine and generally tap-rooted. Leaves have three
leaflets up to 15 cm long, densely hairy beneath and rather silvery, with the
lateral leaflets asymmetrical. Flowers occur in showy, many-flowered pendent
racemes up to 30 cm long, dark purple and creamy-coloured. Pods are up
to 12 cm long, oblong, thick
and curved, covered with stiff
brownish or orange spicules or
hairs, which produce irritation if
the pods are handled; however,
non-stinging cultivated varieties
has been developed. The
stems are slender and slightly
pubescent. The seeds are variable
© CIAT/Daniel Debouck

in colour, ranging from glossy

black to white or brownish with
black mottling. 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). Photo 4.5.1 Seeds of Velvet bean [Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC.]
98 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

In recent decades, there has been increased interest in the potential of

Mucuna species as cover crop, fodder and green manure for tropical and sub-
tropical regions. Historically, velvet bean has been used as a livestock feed.
Prior to the beginning of the twentieth century, it has been reported to have
been used as a fodder for cattle in Mauritius (Piper and Tracy, 1910). It was
considered as promising feed in the United States, when it was identified by
researchers at the Florida Agricultural Experimental Station in 1895 (Clute,
1896).

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR CULTIVATION

Velvet bean can grow in very diverse environments. It prefers well-drained
soil, but it able to grow well in sandy and acid soils. It prefers hot, climates
with rainfall ranging between 1 000 and 2 500 mm, but also can grow in as
little as 400 mm of annual rainfall. It does have some tolerance to drought, but
it will not survive in waterlogged soils. The best temperature range to grow
velvet bean is between 19 °C and 27 °C and it requires high light intensity to
grow.

NUTRITIONAL VALUE
Velvet bean seeds are rich in protein (24–30 percent, DM basis; Table 4.5.1),
starch (28 percent, DM basis) and gross energy (10–11 MJ/kg, DM basis)
(Siddhuraju, Becker and Makkar, 2000; Pugalenthi, Vadivel and Siddhuraju,
2005). Bressani (2002) compared the nutritional quality of velvet bean with
common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and concluded that the proximate
composition, amino acid and micronutrient content, protein quality and
digestibility of velvet beans are in general similar to those of common beans.
Yields of velvet bean range from 10 to 35 tonne green material/ha per year,
and from 0.25 to 3.3 tonne seed/ha per year depending on the cultivation
conditions (Ecocrop, 2011).

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Several anti-nutritional factors such as L-dopa (L-3, 4-dihydroxyphenylalanine),
total free phenolics, tannins, haemagglutinin, trypsin and chymotrypsin
inhibitors, dimethyltryptamine, anti-vitamins, protease inhibitors, phytic acid,
flatulence factors, saponins, and hydrogen cyanide are present in velvet beans
(Vadivel and Janardhanan, 2000).

L-dopa
L-dopa is one of the two important non-protein amino acids (the other is
dimethyltryptamine; a hallucinogenic substance) present in velvet beans.
L-dopa is used for symptomatic relief of Parkinson’s disease. The level of
L-dopa in seeds varies from 1.6 to 7 percent (Cook et al., 2005). Matenga et
al. (2003) reported that ensiling decreased L-dopa content in the seeds by
10–47 percent. Ruminants are less susceptible to L-dopa, as it does not modify
Pulses nes: Velvet bean 99

Table 4.5.1 Chemical composition of velvet bean and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Aerial part,
Parameter Seeds Pods Pod husk Hay
fresh

Crude protein 18.2–37.0 10.2–25.9 21.0 4.3 14.8

Ether extract 0.7–4.7 1.3–4.7 2.6 0.7 2.6
Crude fibre 4.8–9.5 14.2–36.6 15.6 42.4 30.7
Ash 3.0–4.6 5.2–12.2 4.5 5.9 8.9
NDF 14.6–28.4 10.3–59.6
ADF 6.0–9.1 7.1–45.6
Lignin 0.2–1.8 10.0–14.9
Calcium 0.10–0.30 0.63–1.42
Phosphorus 0.29–0.51 0.12–0.31
Notes: DM (as fed) is 88.5–94.7 for seeds, 15.0–45.4 percent for fresh aerial part, 90.3 percent for pods, 89.2
percent for pod husk, and 90.6 percent for hay.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).

the rumen fermentation pattern, and rumen microbes get adapted to L-dopa
(Chikagwa-Malunga et al., 2009b). L-dopa may also cause skin eruptions in
monogastrics (Pugalenthi, Vadivel and Siddhuraju, 2005).

Alkaloids and others

A number of alkaloids, such as mucunain, prurienine and serotonin, are
present in velvet bean seeds. Mucunain 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. It has been reported that haemorrhage and death can result from
cattle eating the hairy pods (Miller, 2000).
In addition to the above, velvet bean seeds also contain other anti-
nutritional factors such as trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors, which
decrease protein digestibility, induce pancreatic hypertrophy and hyperplasia,
increase trypsin secretion and, therefore, reduce nitrogen retention, growth
and feed conversion. Phytate present in the seeds may reduce availability of
minerals and protein. Oligosaccharides (mainly verbascose) cause flatulence.
The amount of hydrogen cyanide found in velvet bean seeds is well below (5.8
mg/100g) the lethal dose (35 mg/100g). Lectins and saponins are also present
in velvet bean seeds (Pugalenthi, Vadivel and Siddhuraju, 2005).
These anti-nutritional factors can be efficiently reduced by a wide range of
treatments, such as boiling in water (1 hour), autoclaving (20 minutes), water-
soaking (48 hours and then boiling for 30 minutes), or soaking the cracked
seeds (24 hours in 4 percent calcium hydroxide solution) (Cook et al., 2005;
Pugalenthi, Vadivel and Siddhuraju, 2005).

DIGESTIBILITY
Various studies on ruminants showed no negative impacts on animal
performance and health on consumption of Velvet bean grain or foliage.
Ayala-Burgos et al. (2003) and Sandoval-Castro et al. (2003) studied the
100 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

effect of anti-nutritional compounds present in velvet bean on degradation

activity of rumen micro-organisms. Sandoval-Castro et al. (2003) found
that in vitro dry matter digestibility of beans and husks were high at 97.9
and 79.0 percent, respectively. This study suggests that the anti-nutritional
factors showed no detrimental effect on the in vitro fermentation. Also, in
another in vitro study, Adesogan et al. (2004) found higher DM digestibility
of velvet bean than soybean. These results suggest that velvet bean has
potential to replace conventional energy sources (maize and sorghum)
in ruminant diets. The husks have high digestibility and can also be
incorporated into the diet.

VELVET BEAN SEED AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

Velvet bean seeds
Velvet bean seeds are a promising protein supplement for situations where cost
or availability precludes the use of soybean in ruminant rations. Pods with
their seeds can be ground into a rich protein meal and can be fed to all classes
of livestock (Chikagwa-Malunga et al., 2009c).

Sheep and goats. Many studies confirmed that supplementing velvet beans and
pods in the diet of sheep and goats has no adverse effects (Castillo-Caamal,
Castillo-Caamal and Ayala-Burgos, 2003; Castillo-Caamal et al., 2003;
Matenga et al., 2003; Mendoza-Castillo, Castillo-Caamal and Ayala-Burgos,
2003; Pérez-Hernandez, Ayala-Burgos and Belmar-Casso, 2003).

Velvet bean forage

Velvet bean intended for forage can be harvested when the pods are still young,
usually between 90–120 days after sowing (Wulijarni-Soetjipto and Maligalig,
1997). They also reported that at 5-week cutting intervals, and cutting at 30 cm
height provides forage with good quality and high yield. Biomass yield and
nutritive value can be enhanced by harvesting at about 120 days after planting
(Chikagwa-Malunga et al., 2009a). Velvet beans yield green fodder up to 20–35
tonne/ha resulting in 8.2–16.4 tonne DM/ha (Ecocrop, 2011).

Cattle. Armstrong et al. (2008) reported that, 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. Juma et al. (2006) observed
similar lactation performance with velvet bean and Gliricidia [Gliricidia
sepium (Jacq.) Kunth ex Walp.] with a Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum
Schumach.) basal diet in cows. Velvet bean and gliricidia forages gave similar
daily milk yield (5.2 and 5.5 kg/cow, respectively) when used to supplement
a grass basal diet (Muinga, Saha and Mureithi, 2003), and these authors
concluded that velvet bean forage at 2 kg DM/day can be used to supplement
dairy cows fed a grass-based diet.
Pulses nes: Velvet bean 101

Velvet bean hay

Due to its long vines and dense matted growth of velvet bean, it is difficult to
handle for hay making (FAO, 2011). Milk production increased by 13 percent
in dairy cows fed Napier grass supplemented with velvet bean hay (Nyambati,
Sollenberger and Kunkle, 2003). Murungweni, Mabuku and Manyawu (2004)
also observed higher milk yields, protein, lactose and non-fat solids for cows fed
velvet bean-hay based diets compared with those fed hyacinth bean-based diets.

Sheep and goats. Murungweni, Mabuku and Manyawu (2004) found that
feeding velvet bean hay at 2.5 percent of BW, along with poor quality roughage
(maize stover) had no adverse effects in young rams. However, velvet bean
hay caused metabolic disorders (diarrhoea) if given in excess of 2.6 percent of
BW. The addition of a small quantity of molasses may improve consumption
(Matenga et al., 2003) and reduce dustiness (Pérez-Hernandez, Ayala-Burgos
and Belmar-Casso, 2003).

Pigs
The use of velvet bean seeds in pig diets is limited, mainly because of
deficiency in sulphur-containing amino acids, and the presence of numerous
anti-nutritional and toxic factors (Pugalenthi, Vadivel and Siddhuraju, 2005).
Sridhar and Bhat (2007) observed that feeding raw seeds can result in
deleterious effects on pig performance as well as their blood constituents.
Emenalom et al. (2004) observed that incorporating 15 percent of raw velvet
beans in pig feeding caused 50 percent mortality in young animals.
It is most desirable to process velvet bean seeds in order to use them safely
in pig feeds. Lizama et al. (2003) reported that inclusion of boiled seeds at 25
percent could satisfactory replace maize in a diet of pigs (40 kg BW). A more
extensive process, consisting of cracking the seeds, soaking them in water for
48 hours and boiling for 1 hour allowed the use of up to 40 percent seeds in the
diets of 15–35 kg pigs. This treatment also allowed full replacement of soybean
meal while maintaining growth rate (341–351 g/day) and feed conversion ratio
(2.53–2.58) (Emenalom et al., 2004).

Poultry
The high protein and energy values of velvet bean seeds make it attractive to
use them in poultry diets; however, the presence of anti-nutritional factors
limits their practical interest, unless appropriate technical treatments are
applied (Carew and Gernat, 2006).

Broilers, quails and guinea fowls. Various studies reported that raw velvet
bean seeds should not be included in broiler diets, as it markedly reduced
broiler performance (Emiola, Ologhobo and Gous, 2007; Tuleun and Igba,
2008). Iyayi, Kluth and Rodehutscord (2006) observed that 5 percent inclusion
102 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

of raw velvet beans can induce a 25 percent drop in broiler performance.

High levels (20 percent of diet) may cause significant mortality in guinea fowl
(Dahouda et al., 2009). Velvet beans appear to be more detrimental to growth
than to feed intake, although results differ among groups (Trejo et al., 2004;
Emiola, Ologhobo and Gous, 2007; Tuleun and Igba, 2008).
Various treatments that have been tested for reducing the levels of anti-
nutritional factors include soaking (with or without additives in water), boiling,
autoclaving, dry roasting and combinations of these techniques (Vadivel et al.,
2011). Processed seeds (dry roasting or soaking + boiling) can be included at
up to 10 percent of the diet, but even processed seeds should be used carefully
and probably avoided for starter animals. Dry roasting has been found to be
an efficient way to limit the negative effects of velvet beans in broilers and
Japanese quails (Emiola, Ologhobo and Gous, 2007; Ukachukwu and Obioha,
2007; Tuleun, Igyem and Adenkola, 2009). However other authors compared
various treatments and found roasting less efficient than boiling for broilers
and Guinea fowls (Emenalom et al., 2005; Dahouda et al., 2009).
Soaking alone (in water with or without additives) is not efficient (Tuleun
and Dashe, 2010; Vadivel et al., 2011), therefore, it should be combined with
a heat treatment such as boiling or autoclaving. Carew and Gernat (2006)
reported that heat treatments can help to reduce the negative effects of velvet
beans. The duration of heat treatments can have an effect on their efficiency
of utilization: boiling velvet bean seeds for 20 minutes resulted in lower
growth rates than boiling for 40 or 60 minutes (Tuleun and Igba, 2008). In
the opinion of several authors, the optimal treatment consisted of soaking
in water or sodium bicarbonate, followed by boiling (60 to 90 minutes)
and drying. This procedure was found to eliminate anti-nutritional factors
efficiently (Vadivel et al., 2011) and broiler performance was maintained at
up to 10–20 percent inclusion of velvet beans in the diet (Akinmutimi and
Okwu, 2006; Emenalom et al., 2006; Farougou et al., 2006; Ukachukwu and
Obioha, 2007; Ani, 2008).

Layers and quails. The feeding of raw velvet bean seeds to layers can result
in a marked reduction in performance. Daily egg production dropped from
78.5 to 65.5 percent with 12.5 percent raw seeds in the diet, and from 84 to
38 percent with 20 percent inclusion (Tuleun, Carew and Ajiji, 2008). Seed
treatments reduced the negative effects of velvet bean seeds, but did not enable
the same performance as control diets, even with lower levels of velvet bean
seeds: in laying hens, the best treatment (toasting) allowed 74 percent hen-day
egg production versus 84 percent from the control diet with 20 percent velvet
bean seeds, while boiled seeds yielded 59 percent hen-day egg production
(Tuleun, Carew and Ajiji, 2008). In laying Japanese quails, 15 percent toasted
seeds caused a significant reduction in performance, but the lower feed cost
per egg produced, and feed cost per bird, justified using velvet bean seeds
(Tuleun and Dashe, 2010). Nevertheless, even processed velvet bean seeds are
Pulses nes: Velvet bean 103

not recommended for feeding in commercial egg production, though they are
economically profitable.

SUMMARY
Velvet bean seeds are a promising protein supplement for ruminants. Seeds
contain two important non-protein amino acids: L-dopa and dimethyltryptamine,
which are anti-nutrients. Velvet bean forage can be supplemented at 2 kg dry
matter/head/day in dairy cows. Maximum inclusion level for velvet bean hay
was recommended at up to 2.5 percent of body weight in sheep and goats. The
use of velvet bean seeds in diets of pig and poultry is limited, due to presence
of anti-nutritional factors. The processing of seeds such as cracking, soaking
in water and boiling of seeds allows replacing soybean meal in the diets of
pig. Processed seeds (soaking, boiling, drying) can be used up to 20 percent in
broiler diets, but are not recommended for layer diets.

REFERENCES CITED IN SECTION 4.5

Adesogan, A.T., Chikagwa-Malunga, S.K., Salawu, M.B. & Kim, S.C. 2004. The in vitro
digestibility, gas production and fermentation characteristics of Mucuna pruriens, and soybean
meal treated with or without L-dopa. Journal of Animal Science, 82(1): 212–216.
Akinmutimi, A.H. & Okwu, N.D. 2006. Effect of quantitative substitution of cooked Mucuna
utilis seed meal for soybean meal in broiler finisher diet. International Journal of Poultry
Science, 5(5): 477–481. DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2006.477.481
Ani, A.O. 2008. The feeding value of processed velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens) for pullets chicks.
Journal of Tropical Agriculture, Food, Environment and Extension, 7(2): 149–155.
Available at: http://www.agrosciencejournal.com/
Armstrong, K.L., Albrecht, K.A., Lauer, J.G. & Riday, H. 2008. Inter-cropping corn with
lablab bean, velvet bean, and scarlet runner bean for forage. Crop Science, 48(1): 371–379.
Ayala-Burgos, A., Herrera-Diaz, P., Castillo-Caamal, J., Rosado-Rivas, C., Osornio-Munos,
L. & Castillo-Caamal, A. 2003. Rumen degradability and chemical composition of the velvet
bean (Mucuna spp.) grain and husk. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 1: 71–75
Available at: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/939/93911288004.pdf
Bressani, R. 2002. Factors influencing nutritive value in food grain legumes: Mucuna compared
to other grain legumes. Pp. 164–188, In: Flores, M., Eilitta, M., Myhrman, R., Carew, L.B.
and Carsky, R.J. (Eds) Food and feed from Mucuna: Current uses and the way forward.
Proceedings of an International Workshop (Vol. 1), CIDICCO, CIEPCA, Worlds Hunger
Research Centre, Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
Carew, L.B. & Gernat, A.G. 2006. Use of velvet beans, Mucuna spp., as a feed ingredient for
poultry: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 62(1): 131–144. DOI: 10.1079/WPS200590
Castillo-Caamal, A.M., Castillo-Caamal, J.B. & Ayala-Burgos, A.J. 2003. Mucuna bean
(Mucuna spp.) supplementation of growing sheep fed with a basal diet of napier grass
(Pennisetum purpureum). Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 1(2–3): 107–111.
Available at: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/939/93911288010.pdf
104 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Castillo-Caamal, J.B., Jiménez-Osornio, J.J., López-Pérez, A., Aguilar-Cordero, W. &

Castillo-Caamal, A.M. 2003. Feeding Mucuna beans to small ruminants of mayan farmers
in the Yucatán peninsula. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 1(2–3): 113–117.
Available at: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/939/93911288011.pdf
Chikagwa-Malunga, S.K., Adesogan, A.T., Salawu, M.B., Szabo, N.J., Littell, R.C., Kim, S.C.
& Phatak, S.C. 2009b. Nutritional characterization of Mucuna pruriens. 2. In vitro ruminal
fluid fermentability of Mucuna pruriens, Mucuna L-dopa and soybean meal incubated with
or without L-dopa. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 148(1): 51–67.
DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2008.03.005
Chikagwa-Malunga, S.K., Adesogan, A.T., Sollenberger, L.E., Badinga, L.K., Szabo, N.J. &
Littell, R.C. 2009a. Nutritional characterization of Mucuna pruriens. 1. Effect of maturity on
the nutritional quality of botanical fractions and the whole plant. Animimal Feed Science and
Technology, 148(1): 34–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2008.03.004
Chikagwa-Malunga, S.K., Adesogan, A.T., Sollenberger, L.E., Phatak, S.C., Szabo, N.J., Kim,
S.C., Huisden, C.M. & Littell, R.C. 2009c. Nutritional characterization of Mucuna pruriens.
4. Does replacing soybean meal with Mucuna pruriens in lamb diets affect ruminal, blood and
tissue l-dopa concentrations? Animal Feed Science and Technology, 148(2–4): 124–137.
DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2008.03.003
Clute, O. 1896. The velvet bean. Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, No. 35: 340–345.
Cook, B.G., Pengelly, B.C., Brown, S.D., Donnelly, J.L., Eagles, D.A., Franco, M.A., Hanson,
J., Mullen, B.F., Partridge, I.J., Peters, M. & Schultze-Kraft, R. 2005. Tropical forages:
An interactive selection tool. CSIRO, DPI&F(Qld), CIAT and ILRI, Brisbane, Australia.
Available at: http://www.tropicalforages.info/
Dahouda, M., Toleba, S.S., Youssao, A.K.I., Mama Ali, A.A., Dangou-Sapoho, R.K.,
Ahounou, S.G., Hambuckers, A. & Hornick, J.-L. 2009. The effects of raw and processed
Mucuna pruriens seed based diets on the growth parameters and meat characteristics of Benin
local guinea fowl (Numida meleagris, L). International Journal of Poultry Science, 8(9): 882–
889. DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2009.882.889
Duke, J.A. 1981. Handbook of Legumes of World Economic Importance. Springer US. Plenum
Press, New York, USA. ISBN: 9781468481532. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4684-8151-8
Ecocrop. 2011. Ecocrop database. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Available at: http://ecocrop.fao.org/ecocrop/srv/en/home
Eilittä, M. & Carsky, R.J. 2003. Efforts to improve the potential of Mucuna as a food and feed
crop: background to the workshop. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 1: 47–55.
Available at: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/939/93911288002.pdf
Emenalom, O.O., Udedibie, A.B.I., Esonu, B.O. & Etuk, E.B. 2005. Evaluation of processed
velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens) as a feed ingredient in starter diets for broiler chickens.
Japanese Journal of Poultry Science, 42(4): 301–307.
Emenalom, O.O., Udedibie, A.B.I., Esonu, B.O. & Etuk, E.B. 2006. Cooking in local alkaline
solution as a method for improving the nutritive value of velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens)
for broilers. Pp. 239–245, In: Rege, J.E.O., Nyamu, A.M., and Sendalo, D. (eds). The role
of biotechnology in animal agriculture to address poverty in Africa: opportunities and
challenges. Proceedings of the fourth All-Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture, Arusha,
Tanzania, 20–24 Sept. 2005.
Pulses nes: Velvet bean 105

Emenalom, O.O., Udedibie, A.B.I., Esonu, B.O., Etuk, E.B. & Emenike, H.I. 2004. Evaluation
of unprocessed and cracked, soaked and cooked velvet beans (Mucuna pruriens) as feed
ingredients for pigs. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 16: Article #33.
Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd16/5/enem16033.htm
Emiola, A.I., Ologhobo, A.D. & Gous, R.M. 2007. Influence of processing of mucuna (Mucuna
pruriens var utilis) and kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) on the performance and nutrient
utilization of broiler chickens. Journal of Poultry Science, 44(2): 168–174.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2011. Grassland Index. A
searchable catalogue of grass and forage legumes. FAO.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/GBASE/Default.htm
Farougou, S., Kpodekon, M., Tokannou, R., Djossou, V.D., Akoutey, A. & Youssao, I.A.K.
2006. Utilisation de la farine de Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC dans l’aliment de croissance des
pintades (Numida meleagris). Revue de médecine vétérinaire, 157(10): 502–508.
Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ/FAO.
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
Iyayi, E.A., Kluth, H. & Rodehutscord, M. 2006. Chemical composition, anti-nutritional
constituents, pre-caecal crude protein and amino acid digestibility in three unconventional
tropical legumes in broilers. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 86(13): 2166–2171.
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2592
Juma, H.K., Abdulrazak, S.A., Muinga, R.W. & Ambula, M.K. 2006.Evaluation of Clitoria,
Gliricidia and Mucuna as nitrogen supplements to Napier grass basal diet in relation to the
performance of lactating Jersey cows. Livestock Science, 103(1–2): 23–29.
DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2005.12.006
Lizama, W.T., Ricalde, R.S., Belmar, R., Anderson, S. & Sundrum, A. 2003. Digestibility and nitrogen
retention in creole pigs and improved breed of pigs fed with maize and mucuna beans in peasent
systems in South Mexico. Deutscher Tropentag, October 8-10, 2003, Göttingen. Technological and
institutional innovations for sustainable rural development, Göttingen, Germany.
Matenga, V.R., Ngongoni, N.T., Titterton, M. & Maasdorp, B.V. 2003. Mucuna seed as a
feed ingredient for small ruminants and effect of ensiling on its nutritive value. Tropical and
Subtropical Agroecosystems, 1(2–3): 97–105.
Mendoza-Castillo, H., Castillo-Caamal, J.B. & Ayala-Burgos, A. 2003. Impact of Mucuna
bean (Mucuna spp.) supplementation on milk production of goats. Tropical and Subtropical
Agroecosystems, 1(2–3): 93–96.
Available at: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/939/93911288008.pdf
Miller, I.L. 2000. Cow itch or pica-pica (Mucuna pruriens; synonym Stizolobium pruriens).
Bulletin: Agnote - Northern Territory of Australia No. 652. 1p.
Muinga, R.W., Saha, H.M. & Mureithi, J.G. 2003. The effect of mucuna (Mucuna pruriens)
forage on the performance of lactating cows. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 1(2–
3): 87–91. Available at: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/939/93911288007.pdf
Murungweni, E.C., Mabuku, O. & Manyawu, G.J. 2004. Mucuna, Lablab and Paprika
Calyx as substitutes for commercial protein sources used in dairy and pen-fattening diets by
smallholder farmers of Zimbabwe. In: Whitbread, A.M. and Pengelly, B.C. (Eds). Tropical
legumes for sustainable farming systems in southern Africa and Australia. ACIAR Proceedings,
No. 115.
106 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Nyambati, E.M., Sollenberger, L.E. & Kunkle, W.E. 2003. Feed intake and lactation
performance of dairy cows offered napier grass supplemented with legume hay. Livestock
Production Science, 83(2–3): 179–189. DOI: 10.1016/S0301-6226(03)00094-0
Pérez-Hernandez, F., Ayala-Burgos, A.J. & Belmar-Casso, R. 2003. Performance of growing
lambs supplemented with Mucuna pruriens. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 1: 119–
122. Available at: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/939/93911288012.pdf
Piper, C.V. & Tracy, S.M. 1910. The Florida velvet bean and related plants. Pp. 239–243,
in: USDA, Bureau of Plant Industry, Bulletin No 179. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
Pugalenthi, M., Vadivel, V. & Siddhuraju, P. 2005. Alternative Food/Feed Perspectives of
an Underutilized Legume Mucuna pruriens var. utilis—A Review. Plant Foods for Human
Nutrition, 60: 201–218. DOI: 10.1007/s11130-005-8620-4
Sandoval-Castro, C.A., Herrera, P., Capetillo, C.M. & Ayala-Burgos, A.J. 2003. In vitro
gas production and digestibility of Mucuna bean. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems,
1: 77–80. Available at: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/939/93911288005.pdf
Siddhuraju, P., Becker, K. & Makkar, H.P. 2000. Studies on the nutritional composition and
antinutritional factors of three different germplasm seed materials of an under-utilized
tropical legume, Mucuna pruriens var. utilis. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,
48(12): 6048–6060.
Sridhar, K.R. & Bhat, R. 2007. Agrobotanical, nutritional and bioactive potential of
unconventional legume - Mucuna. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 19(9): Article
# 126. Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/9/srid19126.htm
Trejo, L.W., Santos, R., Hau, E., Olivera, L., Anderson, S. & Belmar, R. 2004. Utilisation of
mucuna beans (Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC ssp. deeringianum (Bart) Hanelt) to feed growing
broilers. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics,
105(2): 155–164. Available at: http://www.jarts.info/index.php/jarts/article/view/58/52
Tuleun, C.D. & Dashe, N.A. 2010. Effect of dietary levels of toasted mucuna seed meal (TMSM)
on the performance and egg quality parameters of laying Japanese quails (Coturnix coturnix
japonica). International Journal of Poultry Science, 9(12): 1092–1096.
DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2010.1092.1096
Tuleun, C.D. & Igba, F. 2008. Growth and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens fed water
soaked and cooked velvet bean (Mucuna utilis) meal. African Journal of Biotechnology,
7(15): 2676–2681. Available at: http://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajb/article/view/59120
Tuleun, C.D., Carew, S.N. & Ajiji, I. 2008. Feeding value of velvet beans (Mucuna utilis) for
laying hens. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 20(5): Article #81.
Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/5/tule20081.htm
Tuleun, C.D., Igyem, S.Y. & Adenkola, A.Y. 2009. The feeding value of toasted mucuna seed
meal diets for growing Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). International Journal of
Poultry Science, 8(11): 1042–1046. DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2009.1042.1046
Ukachukwu, S.N. & Obioha, F.C. 2007. Effect of processing methods on the nutritional value
of Mucuna cochinchinensis to broiler chicks. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture.,
47(2): 125–131.
Available at: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=EA03111.pdf
Pulses nes: Velvet bean 107

US Forest Service. 2011. Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC. Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER).
Available at: http://www.hear.org/pier/species/mucuna_pruriens.htm
Vadivel, V. & Janardhanan, K. 2000. Nutritional and antinutritional composition of velvet
bean: An under-utilized food legume in South India. International Journal of Food Sciences
and Nutrition, 51(4): 279–287.
Vadivel, V., Pugalenthi, M., Doss, M. & Parimelazhagan, T. 2011. Evaluation of velvet bean
meal as an alternative protein ingredient for poultry feed. Animal, 5(1): 67–73.
DOI: 10.1017/S175173111000159X
Wulijarni-Soetjipto, N. & Maligalig, R.F. 1997. Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC. cv. group Utilis.
Record from Proseabase. Faridah Hanum, I. and van der Maesen, L.J.G. (Editors). PROSEA
(Plant Resources of South-East Asia) Foundation, Bogor, Indonesia.
 109

4.6 African yam bean

COMMON NAMES
African yam bean, yam-pea (English); pois tubéreux africain, haricot igname,
pomme de terre du Mossi (French); kutreku, kulege, akitereku, apetreku
(Ghana); girigiri, kutonoso, roya, efik, nsama, ibibio (Nigeria); cinkhoma,
nkhoma (Malawi); okpo dudu (Ibo); bitei (Obudu); sesonge, gundosollo,
sumpelegu, tschangilu (Togo); Yoruba: sese, sheshe (Yoruba); giliabande,
pempo, or mpempo (Congo).

DISTRIBUTION
African yam bean [Sphenostylis stenocarpa (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) Harms]
originated in Ethiopia. Both wild and cultivated types are now cultivated in
tropical west and central Africa, and southern and eastern Africa, particularly
in Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria and Togo (Potter, 1992). It is
cultivated in Nigeria mainly for seed. It is also cultivated for tubers in Côte
d’Ivoire, Ghana, Togo, Cameroon, Gabon, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Ethiopia, and parts of East Africa, notably Malawi and Zimbabwe.

DESCRIPTION
African yam bean is a vigorously climbing herbaceous vine whose height can
reach 1.5–3 m or more. The main vine/stem produces many branches which
also twine strongly on available supports. The vegetative growing stage is
characterized by the profuse production of trifoliate leaves. The slightly
woody pods contain 20–30 seeds, are up to 30 cm long and mature within
170 days. The plant produces underground tubers that are used as food in
some parts of Africa, and serve as organs of
perennation in the wild (Potter, 1992).
It flowers profusely in 100 to 150 days,
producing brightly-coloured flowers, which
may be pink, purple or greenish white. From
4 to 10 flowers are arranged in racemes on
long peduncles, usually on the primary and
secondary branches. The large and attractive
flowers blend pink with purple; the standard
petals twist slightly backwards on themselves
at anthesis. The flowers seem to exhibit self-
pollination; up to 6 pods/peduncle may result
after fertilization. The pods are usually linear,
housing about 20 seeds. The linear and long
unicarpel pods turn brown when mature (Duke,
© IITA

1981). There are varieties with different seed Photo 4.6.1 Seeds of African yam bean
colours (Oshodi et al., 1995) and sizes (Adewale [Sphenostylis stenocarpa (Hochst. ex A.
et al., 2010) with mono-coloured or mosaic Rich.) Harms]
 110 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

types. Mono-coloured seeds are

white, grey, cream, light or dark
brown, purple, or black.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR

CULTIVATION
African yam bean grows on a
wide range of soils including acid
and highly leached sandy soils at
altitudes from sea level to 1 950
masl (Amoatey et al., 2000). It
thrives on deep, loose sandy and
© IITA

Photo 4.6.1 Plants of African yam bean [Sphenostylis loamy soils with good organic
stenocarpa (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) Harms] with pods content and good drainage. It
grows better in regions where
annual rainfall ranges between 800 and 1 400 mm, and where temperatures are
between 19 and 27 °C (Ecoport, 2009).

NUTRITIONAL VALUE
According to Fasoyiro et al. (2006), African yam bean is a good source of
protein, fibre and carbohydrate. The seeds are rich in protein (22–25 percent,
DM basis) with relatively low fibre content (less than 10 percent, DM basis;
Table 4.6.1). The protein is particularly rich in lysine (up to 9 percent of protein)
and methionine (1–2 percent). The tubers contain 11 to 19 percent protein, 63
to 73 percent carbohydrate and 3 to 6 percent fibre, on DM basis. The tuber
protein is also of high quality (cysteine 1.8, isoleucine 4.5, leucine 7.7, lysine
7.6, methionine 1.7, phenylalanine 4.5, threonine 4.3, and valine 5.5 percent).
The protein in the tuber of African yam bean is more than twice the
protein in sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.] or Irish potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.) (NRC, 1979) and higher than in cassava (Manihot esculenta
Crantz) (Amoatey et al., 2000). Moreover, the amino acid values in African
yam bean seeds are higher than in pigeon pea, cowpea or bambara groundnut
(Uguru and Madukaife, 2001). The content of crude protein in African yam
bean seeds is lower than that in soybean, but the amino acid composition
indicates that the levels of most of the essential amino acids especially lysine,
methionine, histidine, and iso-leucine in African yam bean are higher than in
other legumes, including soybean (NRC, 2007). The African yam bean is rich
in minerals such as potassium, phosphorus, magnesium, calcium, iron and
zinc, but low in sodium and copper (Edem, Amugo and Eka, 1990).

Production of seeds and tubers

Seed yield is very poor in Nigeria, about 300–500 kg/ha (Ezueh, 1984)
although much higher estimates of yield (2 000–3 000 kg/ha) have been
reported for fertile soils. The average seed yield per plant is between 100 and
200 g and the tuber yield per plant is 500 g (NRC, 1979). The African yam
Pulses nes: African yam bean 111

Table 4.6.1 Chemical composition of African yam bean and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Parameter Seeds Hulls Foliage, fresh

Crude protein 21.6–25.9 11.4 23.5

Ether extract 1.1–4.2 2.6 2.2
Crude fibre 6.0–9.9
Ash 3.2–5.0 2.6
NDF 46.8
ADF 20.1
Lignin 8.3
Calcium 0.06 0.30
Phosphorus 0.33 0.20
Notes: DM (as fed) is 90.2–92.5 percent for seeds, 87.5 percent for hulls, and 52.5 percent for fresh forage.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).

bean has very high ability to fix nitrogen; therefore, it is an important crop that
merits significant consideration for land reclamation.

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
African yam bean seeds contain tannins, trypsin inhibitors, hydrogen cyanide,
saponins and phytic acid (Akinmutimi, Amaechi and Unogu, 2006). In
addition, it also contains alpha-galactosides and lectin (Oboh et al., 1998).
Betsche et al. (2005) reported alpha-amylase inhibitor (6–13 Units/g), saponin
(2–4 mg/kg), trypsin inhibitor (0.7–3.0 TIU/mg), total and soluble oxalate
(21–35 and 3–6 mg/100 g, respectively), tannin (0.9–20 mg/g), phytic acid
(4.5–7.3 mg/g) and beta-galactosides (2.3–3.4 g/100 g).
Various processing methods (soaking, blanching, dehulling, heating,
and soaking with potash) have been employed to reduce anti-nutritional
factors (Aminigo and Metzger, 2005). Long time cooking gives the highest
digestibility value in African yam bean. Long cooking with moist heat
treatment is a way to rid African yam bean from anti-nutritional factors
(Fasoyiro et al., 2006).
Dehulling of seeds significantly improved the digestibility of African yam
bean protein compared with whole seed (Abbey and Berezi, 1988). Roasting
the bean at 160 ºC for 30 minutes and pre-soaking treatment in alkaline water
for 24 hours, followed by autoclaving was optimally effective and did not
harm the protein quality of African yam bean (Agunbiade and Longe, 1996).
Fermentation can also substantially improve the nutritional quality of African
yam bean (Betsche et al., 2005; Jeff-Agboola, 2007) and reduce losses (due to
thermal influences) of most food factors.
Aminigo and Metzger (2005) reported that protein content was slightly
increased by soaking and blanching, while ash and fat contents were reduced.
They also observed that the levels of tannins in marbled genotype seeds were
reduced by blanching for 40 minutes (reduced by 19.2 percent), soaking for
12 hours (reduced by 16.0 percent), dehulling (reduced by 72.0 percent), and
dehulling and blanching (reduced by 88.8 percent). Generally, a combination
112 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

of dehulling and wet-processing reduced firmness of the beans more than

soaking or blanching of the whole beans.

AFRICAN YAM BEAN SEED AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

Little information is available on feeding of African yam bean and its
by-products to animals.

African yam bean seeds

Rabbit. Anya et al. (2011) recommended the inclusion of African yam bean
seeds up to 20 percent, as a protein source in cassava-peel-meal-based diets for
weaned rabbits, with no adverse effect on performance.

Poultry. African yam bean seeds were found to have a higher metabolizable
energy value than soybean meal. Heat treatment (autoclaving or cooking)
results in a significant increase in metabolizable energy (Nwokolo and Oji,
1985). Raji et al. (2014) observed that African yam bean can be used up to 20
percent in the diet of broiler finisher, as it did not affect weight of carcass cuts,
internal organs or viscera. It was reported that a 50 percent protein replacement
of soybean meal with cooked African yam bean was equally good as feeding
soybean meal as the protein source in the diet of broiler chicks. Hence, aqueous
heating was a better processing method for African yam bean compared with
dehulling. It was also better to dehull the seeds prior to aqueous heating to
facilitate adequate elimination of the anti-nutritional factors (Emiola, 2011).

African yam bean hull

The hulls contain 11.4 percent protein and 2.6 percent fat (DM basis). The hull
is rich in cell wall polysaccharides, with a cellulose content of 35.4 percent.
The crude protein of hulls is almost double that in braod bean (Vicia faba L.)
(Agunbiade and Longe, 1996) and more than twice that in Bambara groundnut
(Mahala and Mohammed, 2010).

Rat and rabbit. Trials of African yam bean hull as rat feed (Agunbiade and
Longe, 1996) showed increased weight and higher feed conversion efficiency
compared with cellulose-free and pure cellulose meal. This implies that
African yam bean hull could be a good source of dietary fibre. A low quantity
of African yam bean in the meal of weaner rabbit could substantially substitute
for soybean (Akinmutimi et al., 2006). The leaves and stovers, the grains and
the hull of African yam bean have been used to substitute for the commonly
used livestock feeds (Agunbiade and Longe, 1996; Akinmutimi et al., 2006).
Since the tuber of African yam bean does not form a part of the meal of West
Africans, its incorporation in animal feeds should be explored.

Goats
Ajayi (2011) observed that the silage made from mixtures of napier grass
Pulses nes: African yam bean 113

(Pennisetum purpureum Schumach.) and African yam bean plants enhanced

protein digestibility, nitrogen absorption and retention.

SUMMARY
African yam bean seeds and tubers are good source of protein and minerals.
The seed protein is rich in lysine and methionine. The anti-nutritional factors
present in seeds are tannins, trypsin inhibitors, hydrogen cyanide, saponins,
and phytic acid. Various processing methods such as cooking with moist heat
treatment, dehulling, roasting and pre-soaking in water alkali solution help
reducing anti-nutritional factors from the seeds. African yam bean seeds can
be included up to 20 percent in the diets of broiler and rabbit. More research
is required to efficiently exploit the potential for feeding of African yam bean
seeds and by-products in livestock and monogastric animals.

REFERENCES CITED IN SECTION 4.6

Abbey, B.W. & Berezi, P.E. 1988. Influence of processing on the digestibility of African
yam bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa (Hochst ex A. Rich.) Harms) flour. Nutritional Report
International, 37: 819–827.
Adewale, B.D., Kehinde, O.B., Aremu, C.O., Popoola, J.O. & Dumet, D.J. 2010. Seed metrics
for genetic and shape determination in African yam bean [Fabaceae] (Sphenostylis stenocarpa
Hochst ex A. Rich.) Harms. African Journal of Plant Science, 4(4): 107–115.
Available at: http://eprints.covenantuniversity.edu.ng/id/eprint/3344
Agunbiade, S.O. & Longe, O.G. 1996. Effect of processing on the physico-chemical
properties of African yam bean Sphenostylis stenocarpa (Hochst ex A. Rich.) Harms.
Nahrung, 40(4): 184–188. DOI: 10.1002/food.19960400405
Ajayi, F.T. 2011. Effects of feeding ensiled mixtures of elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum)
with three grain legume plants on digestibility and nitrogen balance of West African Dwarf
goats. Livestock Science, 142(1–3): 80–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2011.06.020
Akinmutimi, A.H., Amaechi, N. & Unogu, M. 2006. Evaluation of raw African yam bean
meal as substitute for soya bean meal in the diet of weaner rabbits. Journal of Animal and
Veterinary Advances, 5(11): 907–911.
Available at: http://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=javaa.2006.907.911
Aminigo, E.R. & Metzger, L.E. 2005. Pre-treatment of African yam bean (Sphenostylis
stenocarpa): effect of soaking and blanching on the quality of African yam bean seed. Plant
Foods for Human Nutrition, 60(4): 165–71. DOI: 10.1007/s11130-005-9551-4
Amoatey, H.M., Klu, G.Y.P., Bansa, D., Kumaga, F.K., Aboagye, L.M., Benett-Lartey, S.O. &
Gamedoagbao, D.K. 2000. The African yam bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa): A neglected crop
in Ghana. West African Journal of Applied Ecology, 1: 53–60.
Anya, M.I., Ayuk, A.A., Umoren, E.P., Akpojovwo, V.A. & Ubua, J. 2011. Performance
of weaned rabbit fed graded levels of African yambean in cassava-peel-meal-based diets.
Continental Journal of Agricultural Science, 5(2): 25–30.
Betsche, T., Azeke, M., Buening-Pfaue, H. & Fretzdorff, B. 2005. Food safety and security:
fermentation as a tool to improve the nutritional value of African yam bean. Pp. 1–5,
114 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

in: Proceedings of the International Agricultural Research for Development Conference,

October, Stuttgart - Hohenheim..
Duke, J.A. 1981. Handbook of Legumes of World Economic Importance. Springer US. Plenum
Press,. New York, USA. ISBN: 9781468481532. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4684-8151-8 ,
Ecoport. 2009. Ecoport database. Available at: http://www.ecoport.org.
Edem, D.O., Amugo, C.I., & Eka, O.U. 1990. Chemical composition of yam beans (Sphenostylis
stenocarpa). Tropical Science, 30: 59–63.
Emiola, I.A. 2011. Processed African yam bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa) in broiler
feeding: performance characteristics and nutrient utilization. Journal of Environmental Issues
and Agriculture in Developing Countries, 3(3): 123–131.
Ezueh, M. 1984. African yam bean as a crop in Nigeria. World Crops, 36: 199–200.
Fasoyiro, S.B., Ajibade, S.R., mOmole, A.J, Adeniyan, O.N., & Farinde, E.O. 2006. Proximate,
minerals and anti-nutritional factors of some under-utilized grain legumes in South-Western
Nigeria. Nutrition and Food Science, 36(1): 18–23. DOI: 10.1108/00346650610642151
Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ/FAO.
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
Jeff-Agboola, Y.A. 2007. Micro-organisms associated with natural fermentation of African yam
bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa Harms) seeds for the production of Otiru. Research Journal of
Microbiology, 2: 816–823. DOI: 10.3923/jm.2007.816.823
Mahala, A.G. & Mohammed, A.A.A. 2010. Nutritive evaluation of Bambara groundnut (Vigna
subterranea) pods, seeds and hulls as animal feeds. Journal of Applied Sciences Research,
6(5): 383–386. Available at: http://www.aensiweb.com/old/jasr/jasr/2010/383-386.pdf
NRC (National Research Council, USA). 1979. Tropical Legumes: Resources for the Future.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
NRC. 2007. Lost crops of Africa: pp. 322–344, in:. Volume II: Vegetables, Development,
Security, and Cooperation National Academy of Science. Washington, DC.
Nwokolo, E. & Oji, U.I. 1985. Variation in metabolizable energy content of raw or autoclaved
white and brown varieties of three tropical grain legumes. Animal Feed Science and
Technology, 13(1): 141–146. Available at: https://eurekamag.com/pdf.php?pdf=001506311
Oboh, H.A., Muzquiz, M., Burbano, C., Cuadrado, C., Pedrosa, M.M., Ayet, G. & Osagie,
A.U. 1998. Anti-nutritional constituents of six underutilized legumes grown in Nigeria.
Journal of Chromatography A, 823(1–2): 307–312.
Oshodi, A.A., Ipinmoroti, K.O., Adeyeye, E.I. & Hall, G.M. 1995. In vitro multi-enzyme
digestibility of protein of six varieties of African yam bean flours. Journal of the Science of
Food and Agriculture, 69: 373–377. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2740690315
Potter, D. 1992. Economic botany of Sphenostylis (Leguminosae). Economic Botany, 46(3): 262–
275. DOI: 10.1007/BF02866625
Raji, M.O., Adeleye, O.O., Osuolale, S.A., Ogungbenro, S.D., Ogunbode, A.A., Abegunde,
P.T., Mosobalaje, M.A., Oyinlola, O.O., Alimi, I.O. & Habeeb, A.A. 2014. Chemical
composition and effect of mechanical processed of African yam bean on carcass characteristics
and organs weight of broiler finisher. Asian Journal of Plant Science and Research, 4(2): 1–6.
Uguru, M.I. & Madukaife, S.O. 2001. Studies on the variability in agronomic and nutritive
characteristics of African yam bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa Hochst ex A. Rich. Harms). Plant
Products Research Journal, 6: 10–19.
 115

Chapter 5
Bambara bean
COMMON NAMES
Bambara bean, bambara groundnut, Congo earth pea, Congo goober, Congo
groundnut, earth pea, ground bean, hog-peanut, kaffir pea, Madagascar
groundnut, njugo bean, stone groundnut (English);jugo beans (South Africa);
ntoyo ciBemba (Republic of Zambia); Gurjiya or Kwaruru (Hausa, Nigeria);
Okpa (Ibo, Nigeria); Epa-Roro (Yoruba, Nigeria); Nyimo beans (Zimbabwe);
pois bambara, pois de terre, voandzou (French); bambarra, guandsú, guisante
de tierra, maní de bambarra (Spanish), jinguba de cagambe (Portuguese);
gongongu, gorosgoros, biriji daɓɓi, biriji damuɗi, ngalaa-wu/ji, ngalgalaa-
wu/ji (Fulfulde); Bambara-Erdnuss (German); Kacang bogor (Indonesian);
mnjugu-mawe (Swahili).

DISTRIBUTION
Bambara bean [Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.] originated in West Africa, its
name probably derived from the Bambara tribe, who currently live mainly in
Central Mali (Nwanna et al., 2005). There has been some debate regarding the
exact area of origin; nevertheless, Begemann (1988) has indicated that bambara
bean’s centre of origin should be located between north-eastern Nigeria and
northern Cameroon because of the occurrence of wild forms in this area. It has
been cultivated in tropical Africa for centuries (Yamaguchi, 1983). Bambara
bean is the third most important legume in terms of consumption and socio-
economic impact in semi-arid Africa behind groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)
and cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]. It is found in the wild from central
Nigeria eastwards to southern Sudan, and is now cultivated throughout
tropical Africa, and to a lesser extent in tropical parts of the Americas,
Asia and Australia (Brink,
Ramolemana and Sibuga,
2006).

DESCRIPTION
Bambara is a herbaceous,
annual plant, with creeping
stems at ground level
(Bamshaiye, Adegbola and
Bamishaiye, 2011). This
legume is a small plant that
grows to a height of 30–35
© IITA

cm, with compound leaves

of three leaflets. The plant Photo 5.1.1 Seeds of bambara bean [Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.]
116 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

generally looks like bunched leaves arising from branched stems which form
a crown on the soil surface. After fertilization, pale yellow flowers are borne
on the freely branching stems; these stems then grow downwards into the soil,
taking the developing seed with it (known as geocarpy). The seeds form pods
encasing seeds just below the ground in a similar fashion to Arachis L. Bambara
pods are round, wrinkled, and average 1.3 cm long. Each pod contains 1 or 2
seeds that are round, smooth, and very hard when dried.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR CULTIVATION

Bambara can be grown on a range of soils, especially light loams and sandy
loams, but may be successfully grown on heavier soils than groundnuts. It
does better than most other bean crops in poor soils and grows best with
moderate rainfall and sunshine. Under less favourable growing conditions,
such as limited water supply and infertile soil, it yields better than other
legumes, such as groundnut (NRC, 1979). The crop is the least demanding for
mineral elements and thrives in soils considered too marginal for groundnut.
It can grow in more humid conditions (annual rainfall >2 000 mm), and in
every type of soil provided it is well drained and not too calcareous. Bambara
requires moderate rainfall from sowing until flowering. A minimum annual
rainfall of 500 to 600 mm is required. The plant tolerates heavy rainfall, except
at maturity. It is tolerant to drought, to pests and diseases, particularly in
hot conditions. In many traditional cropping systems it is intercropped with
other root and tuber crops (Brink, Ramolemana and Sibuga, 2006). Average
temperatures between 20 and 28°C are most suitable for the crop.

NUTRITIONAL VALUE
According to Mazahib et al. (2013), high carbohydrate (56 percent) and
relatively high protein (18 percent; Table 5.1) content as well as sufficient
quantities of oil (6.5 percent) make the bambara bean a complete food.
Baudoin and Mergeai (2001) reported that the ripe seeds contain on average
10 percent water, 15–20 percent protein, 4–9 percent fat, 50–65 percent
carbohydrate, and 3–5 percent fibre (DM basis). The essential amino acid
profile of the seeds is comparable with that of soybean (Omoikhoje, 2008),
and better than groundnuts (Bamshaiye, Adegbola and Bamishaiye, 2011).
The fatty acid content is predominantly linoleic, palmitic and linolenic acids
(Minka and Bruneteau, 2000).

Yield of bambara seeds

Average yields of dry seeds usually range between 300 and 800 kg/ha
in traditional farming, and may exceed 3 000 kg/ha in intensive farming
(Baudoin and Mergeai, 2001). The highest recorded seed yield under field
conditions is 4 000 kg/ha. Average yields are 300–800 kg/ha, but yields of
less than 100 kg/ha are not uncommon (Brink, Ramolemana and Sibuga,
2006).
Bambara bean 117

Table 5.1 Chemical composition of bambara bean and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Parameter Seeds Seeds, dehulled Pods Shells Offal Hay Straw

Crude protein 16.7–23.4 15.7–24.9 18.2 6.7 18.2 14.5 7.7

Ether extract 4.6–6.4 3.2–7.5 5.5 2.6 3.7 1.8 1.1
Crude fibre 3.4–17.0 2.0–8.8 14.2 13.0 30.2 22.7
Ash 3.8–5.1 3.1–5.7 5.4 3.9 3.6 9.5 5.4
NDF 24.2 7.8 47.6
ADF 14.0–18.0 3.6 29.8
Lignin 3.2 0.3 10.0
Calcium 0.14 0.01–0.08 0.88
Phosphorus 0.26 0.20–0.84 0.13
Notes: DM (as fed) is 83.0–89.7 percent for seeds, 85.7–97.7 percent for dehulled seeds, 96.6 percent for pods, 91.8 percent
for shells, 90.3 percent for offal, 90.2 percent for hay, and 94.3 percent for straw.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Despite the nutritional benefits of bambara bean, there are nutritional
constraints, such as presence of anti-nutritional factors. Bambara seeds contain
anti-nutritional factors such as trypsin inhibitors, phytates and tannins.
They have higher anti-tryptic activity than soybean, and the level of activity
depends on the landrace (Tibe, Amarteifio and Njogu, 2007). Heat treatments
(boiling, roasting) are usually effective in destroying trypsin inhibitors.
Phytates are found in high concentrations in bambara seeds and are known
to reduce cation availability (Ca in particular) (Nwanna et al., 2005). Cooking
and other forms of processing (soaking, milling, dehulling, germination or
fermentation) reduce the concentration of anti-nutritional factors. However,
processing does not always increase the feeding value (Nwanna et al., 2005;
Oloyede et al., 2007).

BAMBARA BEAN AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

Ruminants
Bambara seeds. Bambara has long been used as an animal feed (Linnemann,
1991). Nwanna et al. (2005) reported that bambara seeds had a higher feeding
value than groundnut cake. Belewu et al. (2008) reported that due to the
overall nutritional qualities of bambara seeds, their inclusion as an alternative,
cheap source of protein and energy in livestock diet by economically weak
farmers (mostly in developing countries) should be encouraged.

Bambara pods, shells, and offal/waste. Bambara pods, shells and offal are
the by-products of processing the seeds into flour for human consumption.
Bambara pods have been used to feed goats in Zambia during the dry season
as they contain adequate levels of carbohydrate and protein (Aregheore, 2001).
The leafy shoots are also used as fodder (Brink, Ramolemana and Sibuga,
2006). The leaves are suitable for animal grazing because they are rich in
nitrogen and phosphorus (Rassel, 1960).
118 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

The offal is produced after splitting the seeds in a mill to remove the shells,
winnowing to remove loosened testa and converting the cotyledons into fine
flour by milling several times followed by sieving. In Nigeria, large amounts
of offal are discarded as waste (Onyimonyi and Okeke, 2007). The bambara
offal is available throughout the year and is cheap, It has no industrial or other
uses in Nigeria. The offal contains 21.2 percent protein (DM basis), 5.3 percent
fibre (DM basis) and 12.44 MJ/ kg gross energy (Amaefule and Iroanya, 2004).

Pigs
In weaner pig diets, inclusion of bambara seeds at up to 10 percent level was
found economical for producing affordable and cheaper pork (Onyimonyi
and Okeke, 2007).

Poultry
Bambara seeds have been successfully used to feed chicks (Oluyemi, Fetuga
and Endeley, 1976). However, there is a big gap in the knowledge of the
nutrient content of bambara seed, digestibility of its nutrients, and its effect on
growing broiler chickens and performance of laying hens.

Broilers. Ologhobo (1992) reported that feed intake of broilers fed 12.5
percent bambara seeds was not significantly different while, at 25 percent level,
it was significantly lower than the control group (maize + soybean-meal-based
diet). Nji, Niess and Pfeffer (2004) reported that between 40 and 60 percent
bambara could be included in the grower diet of broilers. Feeding broilers and
adult cockerels with raw bambara seeds gave lower feed intake, live weight
gain and feed use efficiency compared with soybean meal, as those parameters
are negatively correlated with trypsin inhibitors (Akanji, Ologhobo and
Emiola, 2007; Oloyede et al., 2007). Teguia and Beynen (2005) reported that
the replacement of meat meal in the starter diet of broiler chickens by meals of
bambara seeds reduced growth rate. During the finishing period however, the
groups of broiler birds fed either bambara seeds or a 1:1 mixture of bambara
seeds and large-grained cowpea meal had growth rates comparable to those of
the controls, but the control birds consumed significantly more feed than did
the groups fed bambara grain meal.
Boiling or roasting was effective in removing the anti-nutritional factors,
and it was possible to include treated seeds up to 30 percent in broiler
diets (Bello, Doma and Ousseini, 2005). However, the heat-processed seeds
compared unfavourably with soybean meal (lower protein quality and lower
metabolizable energy) (Nji, Niess and Pfeffer, 2003; Oloyede et al., 2007).

Layers. Inclusion of 451 g bambara seeds/kg in layer feed had no significant

adverse effect on egg production. Eggs from hens fed bambara seeds had lower
mass and stronger shells than the control group. Egg yolk colour did not differ.
The yolk fraction of the control group was significantly higher than that of
Bambara bean 119

the test group, while the reverse was found for the albumen fraction. The yolk
and albumen indices did not differ significantly (Nji, Niess and Pfeffer, 2004).

Bambara offal/waste
Amaefule and Osuagwu (2005) conducted an experiment with different
levels of raw bambara offal (0, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 percent), and found that
it is a valuable feedstuff for poultry when used at 5 percent level. However
it can lower performance at even 10 percent of the ration, and enzyme
supplementation (Roxazyme G) could not compensate the performance loss
(Ani, Omeje and Ugwuowo, 2012). The recommended dietary inclusion rates
are: 5 percent raw offal for pullet chicks (Amaefule and Osuagwu, 2005); up
to 45 percent heat treated offal for broilers (Asaniyan and Akinduro, 2008);
20 percent raw offal for broilers, if supplemented with lysine and methionine
(Ukpabi, Amaefule and Amaefule, 2008).
There have been attempts to use mixtures of bambara offal with cassava
root meal as maize replacer in poultry rations. In most experiments, animal
performances were lower when maize was replaced, however, feed costs were
reduced and bambara offal could be considered a potential maize replacer.
In layer hens, mixtures of cassava root meal and bambara offal in variable
proportions (1:2; 1:1; 2:1) were used to completely replace maize. However, all
mixtures had depressive effects on layer performance (Anyanwu et al., 2008).
The development of the offal as an alternative energy and protein source
could solve the problem of high feed cost for small-scale farmers and also
provide an avenue for a better disposal of the waste (offal), which could
otherwise constitute an environmental problem.

Bambara nut sievate

Bambara by-products, such as bambara sievate, which is a result of processing
bambara into flour for human use, has undergone extensive research and it
was suggested that it can be used in poultry diets (Ugwu and Onyimonyi,
2008; Ekenyem and Odo, 2011). The levels of protein, fibre and fat are
reported as 15.7, 6.7 and 4.7 percent (DM basis), respectively, in bambara nut
sievate. Ekenyem and Odo (2011) conducted a study to replace soybean meal
with bambara nut sievate (0, 5, 10 and 15 percent) and found that 5 percent
inclusion is optimal for carcass and organ characteristics of finisher broilers.

SUMMARY
Bambara bean is an alternative cheap source of protein and energy in live-
stock diets, mainly in African countries. Bambara seeds can be included up
to 10 percent in the diet of pigs. Heat processed seeds can be included up to
45 percent in broiler diet. Bambara by-products such as offal and sievate are
also valuable sources of protein and energy. The raw bambara offal can be
included up to 5 and 20 percent levels in layer and broiler diets, respectively.
Bambara nut sievate can be included up to 5 percent in broiler diets.
120 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

REFERENCES CITED IN CHAPTER 5

Akanji, A.M., Ologhobo, A.D. & Emiola, I.A. 2007. Utilisation of some raw tropical legume
seeds in diets of exotic adult cockerels. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances,
6(4): 485–489.
Available at: http://medwelljournals.com/abstract/ DOI=javaa.2007.485.489
Amaefule, K.U. & Iroanya, C.O. 2004. Replacement of soybean meal and maize offal with
bambara groundnut offal in broiler diets. Nigeria Agricultural Journal, 35: 133–142. Available
at: http://www.ajol.info/index.php/naj/article/view/3200
Amaefule, K.U. & Osuagwu, F.M. 2005. Performance of pullet chicks fed graded levels of raw
Bambarra groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) offal diets as replacement for soybean
meal and maize. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 17: Article #55.
Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/5/amae17055.htm
Ani, A.O., Omeje, O.D. & Ugwuowo, L.C. 2012. Effects of raw bambara nut (Voandzeia
subterranea L.) waste and enzyme complex on growth performance and apparent nutrient
retention in broiler chickens. African Journal of Biotechnology, 11(56): 11991–11997.
Available at: http://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajb/article/view/128992
Anyanwu, G.A., Etuk, E.B., Okoli, I.C. & Udedibie, A.B.I. 2008. Performance and egg
quality characteristics of layers fed different combinations of cassava root meal and bambara
groundnut offals. Asian Journal of Poultry Science, 2: 36–41. DOI: 10.3923/ajpsaj.2008.36.41
Aregheore, E.M. 2001. Growth rate, apparent nutrient digestibility and some blood metabolites
of gwemble Valley goats on rations based on crop residues in the hot dry season in Zambia.
Tropical Animal Health and Production, 33(4): 331–340. DOI: 10.1023/A:1010592104189
Asaniyan, E.K. & Akinduro, V.O. 2008. Performance of broiler chicks fed graded levels of
heat-treated bambarra groundnut [Voandzea subterranea (L.) Thouars] offals. International
Journal of Poultry Science, 7(7): 711–714. DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2008.711.714
Bamshaiye, O.M., Adegbola, J.A. & Bamishaiye, E.I. 2011. Bambara groundnut: an under-
utilized nut in Africa. Advances in Agricultural Biotechnology, 1: 60–72. Available at: http://
cropsfordrylands.com/wp-content/uploads/Bambara-groundnut-an-Under-Utilized-Nut-
in-Africa.pdf
Baudoin, J.P. & Mergeai, G. 2001. Grain legumes. pp 313–317. In: R. Raemaeker, (Ed). Crop
production in Tropical Africa. Directorate Generale for International Cooperation, Brussels.
Belewu, M.A., Fagbemi, T., Dosumu, O.O. & Adeniyi, M.O. 2008. Physico-chemical and anti-
nutritional properties of some lesser known tree and leguminous seeds. International Journal
of Agricultural Research, 3(3): 237–242. DOI: 10.3923/ijar.2008.237.242
Bello, K.M., Doma, U.D. & Ousseini, M.2005. Effect of two processing methods of bambara
nut (Voandzeia subterranea) on the performance of broiler chickens. Global Journal of Pure
and Applied Sciences, 11(3): 335–337. Available at: http://www.ajol.info/index.php/gjpas/
article/view/16511
Brink, M., Ramolemana, G.M. & Sibuga, K.P. 2006.Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc. Record
from Protabase. Brink, M. & Belay, G. (Eds). PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa/
Ressources végétales de l’Afrique tropicale), Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Ekenyem, B.U. & Odo, B.I. 2011. Effects of replacement of soya bean meal by Bambara nut
sievate on the carcass and organ parameters of finisher broiler chicks. Open Journal of Animal
Sciences, 1: 93–96. DOI: 10.4236/ojas.2011.13012
Bambara bean 121

Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ/FAO.

Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
Linnemann, A.R. 1991. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on phenological development
in three genotypes of Bambara groundnut. Anatomy of Botany, 74: 675–681.
Mazahib, A.M., Nuha, M.O., Salawa I.S. & Babiker, E.E. 2013. Some nutritional attributes
of bambara groundnut as influenced by domestic processing. International Food Research
Journal, 20(3): 1165–1171.
Minka, S.R. & Bruneteau, M. 2000. Partial chemical composition of bambara pea [Vigna
subterranea (L.) verdc]. Food Chemistry, 68: 273–276.
Nji, F.F., Niess, E. & Pfeffer, E. 2004. Nutrient content of Bambara groundnut (Vigna
subterranea) and the effects of its inclusion on the performance of growing broiler chickens
and on egg production and quality. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 13: 497–507.
Nji, F.F., Niess, E. & Pfeffer, E. 2003. Effects of raw and heat-treated bambara groundnut (Vigna
subterranea) on the performance and body composition of growing broiler chicks. Archiv für
Tierernährung, 57(6): 443–453.
NRC (National Research Council, USA). 1979. Tropical legumes, resources for the future
Washington: National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
Nwanna, L.C., Enujiugha, V.N., Oseni, A.O. & Nwanna, E.E. 2005. Possible effects of fungal
fermentation on Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) as a feedstuff resource.
Journal of Food Technology, 3(4): 572–575.
Available at: http://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=jftech.2005.572.575
Ologhobo, A.D. 1992. Nutritive values of some tropical (West African) legumes for poultry.
Journal of Applied Animal Research, 2: 93–104.
DOI: 10.1080/09712119.1992.9705938
Oloyede, O.B., Odutuga, A.A., Minari, J.B. & Amballi, A.A. 2007. Assessment of some serum
metabolites and enzymes of broiler-chickens fed raw and processed bambara groundnut.
International Journal of Poultry Science, 6(9): 647–650.
Oluyemi, J.A., Fetuga, B.L. & Endeley, H.N.L. 1976. The metabolizable energy value of some
feed ingredients for young chicks. Poultry Science, 55(2): 611–618.
DOI: 10.3382/ps.0550611
Omoikhoje, S.O. 2008. Assessment of the nutritive value of bambara groundnut as influenced
by cooking time. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 20(4). Article #55. Available
at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/4/omoi20055.htm
Onyimonyi, A.E. & Okeke, G.C. 2007. Assessment of the practical potential of Bambara
(Voandzeia subterranea Thouars) waste for weaner pigs. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition,
6(3): 264–266.
Rassel, A. 1960. Le voandzou Voandzeia subterranea Thou. et sa culture au Kwango. Bulletin
Agricole du Congo Belge et du Ruanda-Urundi, 51: 1–26.
Teguia, A. & Beynen, A.C. 2005. Alternative feedstuffs for broilers in Cameroon. Livestock
Research for Rural Development, 17(3): Article #34.
Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/3/tegu17034.htm
Tibe, O., Amarteifio, J.O. & Njogu, R.M. 2007. Trypsin inhibitor activity and condensed tannin
content in Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) grown in Southern Africa.
Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 11(2): 159–164.
122 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Ugwu, S.O.C. & Onyimonyi, A.E. 2008. Carcass, organ and organoleptic characteristics of
spent layers fed bambara nut sievate. International Journal of Poultry Science, 7: 81–84.
DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2008.81.84
Ukpabi, U.H., Amaefule, K.U. & Amaefule, O.M. 2008. Performance of broilers fed raw
Bambarra groundnut [Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.] offal diets supplemented with lysine and
or methionine. International Journal of Poultry Science, 7(12): 1177–1181.
Yamaguchi, M. 1983. World Vegetables. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, USA.
 123

Chapter 6
Pea
COMMON NAMES
Feed pea, field pea, garden pea, mange-tout, pea, petit-pois, protein pea
(English); pois, pois protéagineux (French); guisante, chícharo, arveja (Spanish);
ervilha (Portuguese); erwt (Dutch); ercis katiang, ercis (Indonesian); pisello
(Italian); tsitsaro (Tagalog); bezelye (Turkish).

DISTRIBUTION
The origin of pea (Pisum sativum L.) is not very well known. Archaeological
evidence found in the Fertile Crescent (the area surrounding modern day
Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Syrian Arab Republic, Lebanon, Palestine, Turkey, the
Islamic Republic of Iran, and the land in and around the Tigris and Euphrates
rivers), indicates that people have been cultivating pea since 8 000 BC. The pea
was first cultivated in western Asia, and from there it was spread to Europe,
China and India (Beentje, 2010). Currently, it is grown in temperate regions, at
high elevations, or during cool seasons in warm regions throughout the world
(Elzebroek and Wind, 2008).

DESCRIPTION
The pea is a cool season annual vine that is smooth and has a bluish-green waxy
appearance. Vines can be up to 270 cm long, however modern cultivars have
shorter vines (about 60 cm long). The stem is hollow, and the taller cultivars
cannot climb without support (Elzebroek and Wind, 2008). Leaves are
alternate, pinnately compound, and consist of two large leaflike stipules, one
to several pairs of oval leaflets, and terminal tendrils. Many modern cultivars
have a semi-leafless or afila leaf type in which the leaflets are converted into
additional tendrils.
Inflorescences occur in the
leaf axils, and consist of racemes
with one to four flowers.
Flowers have five green fused
sepals and five white, purple or
pink petals of different sizes.
The ovary contains up to 15
© FAO/Teodardo Calles

ovules, and the fruit is a closed

pod, 2.5 to 10 cm long that often
has a rough inner membrane.
Ripe seeds are round, smooth
or wrinkled, and can be green,
yellow, beige, brown, red- Photo 6.1.1 Split peas (Pisum sativum L.)
124 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

orange, blue-red, dark violet to almost black, or spotted. Peas can be broadly
classified as garden pea and field pea (Black, Bewleyand Halmer, 2006). Garden
peas (fresh peas, green peas, vining peas) are harvested while still immature,
and eaten cooked as a vegetable. They are marketed fresh, canned, or frozen.
Garden peas are usually of the white-flower hortense types. Field peas (dried
peas, combining peas) are harvested ripe. Dried peas are used whole, or split,
either made into flour for human food or fed to livestock. Field peas are
usually from the coloured flower arvense type.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR CULTIVATION

Peas grow better in relatively cool climates with average temperatures between
7 and 24°C, and in areas with 800–1 000 mm annual rainfall, mostly distributed
during the early stages of growth (Messiaen et al., 2006). Peas are adapted to
many soil types, but grow best on fertile, light-textured, well-drained soils
(Elzebroek and Wind, 2008). Peas are sensitive to soil salinity and extreme
acidity. The ideal soil pH range for pea production is 5.5 to 7.0 (Hartmann et
al., 1988). Field peas can be grown as a winter crop in warm and temperate
areas because pea seedlings have considerable frost resistance. Where winters
are too cold, peas can be grown as a spring crop. They only require 60 days to
reach the bloom stage and 100 days to mature and dry.

PRODUCTION OF PEA SEED AND ITS CROP RESIDUES

Major pea producing countries are China, India, Canada, Russian Federation,
France and the United States of America (FAO, 2012). Pea crops can produce
about 1.7 tonne/ha of seeds and 2–3 tonne/ha of straw (Prolea, 2008).

NUTRITIONAL VALUE
Peas are considered a highly valuable protein source for animal nutrition due
to their high protein content (22–24 percent, DM basis), which is intermediate
between cereals and oil seed meals (Table 6.1). The amino acid profile of peas
is well-balanced in lysine, but deficient in tryptophan and sulphur-containing
amino acids (notably methionine) for species where these are essential amino
acids (Vander Pol et al., 2008). Peas are high in starch (48–54 percent, DM
basis), and relatively low in fibre (less than 8 percent, DM basis). Many
processes such as mechanical treatments (grinding and decortication), dry or
wet heat treatments (cooking and autoclaving) and their combinations (flaking,
extrusion, pelleting) have been used to improve the nutritive value of peas.

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Trypsin inhibitors are the main anti-nutritional factor in peas, their levels
vary with genotype. For example, trypsin inhibiting activity of 33 European
spring pea varieties ranged from 1.69 to 7.56 trypsin inhibiting units (TIU),
while the level in winter peas was 7.34–11.24 TIU (Leterme, Beckers and
Thewis, 1998). Smooth peas contain more trypsin inhibitors than wrinkled
peas (Perrot, 1995). Similarly, protein peas contain low levels of anti-tryptic
Pea 125

Table 6.1 Chemical composition of pea and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Aerial part, By-products, By-products, By-products,
Parameter Seeds Straw Pods, silage
fresh fresh dried ensiled

Crude protein 19.0–28.5 17.7 8.2 5.7–23.7 17.8 18.6 12.0

Ether extract 0.7–2.2 3.1 2.1 0.5–3.6 2.1 2.0 3.2
Crude fibre 3.7–8.5 22.9 36.3 12.2–56.4 22.6 17.7 24.3
Ash 2.7–4.9 9.1 9.8 3.3–11.4 13.3 15.2 18.7
NDF 9.1–22.0 31.1 54.9 16.6–58.1 43.1 43.0 53.7
ADF 5.6–8.8 23.1 38.7 9.3–45.1 26.8 40.5
Lignin 0.1–1.1 4.8 7.2 0.4–12.9 4.7 8.0 9.3
Calcium 0.03–0.29 1.86 2.37 0.30–1.66 1.27
Phosphorus 0.32–0.60 0.39 0.11 0.05–0.30 1.24
Notes: DM (as fed) is 82.0–90.7 percent for seeds, 15.6 percent for fresh aerial part, 88.8 percent for straw, 27.5–95.1
percent for pods, 26.5 for fresh crop by-products, 90.4 percent for dehydrated crop by-products, and 28.2 percent for
ensiled crop by-products.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).

activity (2–6 TIU/mg) (GNIS, 2011). Myer and Brendemuhl (2001) reported
that grains with dark seed coats contain more tannins. Tannin content is much
lower in white flowered peas than in coloured flowered ones (Canbolat, Tamer
and Acikgoz, 2007; Prolea, 2008). Another important antinutritional factor is
lectin, which represents about 2.5 percent of pea protein (Perrot, 1995).
Improving the nutritive value of peas by decreasing trypsin inhibitors
and tannins is the goal of many breeding programmes. Modern cultivars
of “protein peas” are tannin-free and have low concentrations of trypsin
inhibitors, which make them particularly suitable for animal feeding, even in
the unprocessed form, for monogastrics (Mihailovic et al., 2005).

PEA SEED AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

Pea seeds
Pea seeds contain approximately half the protein (25.6 vs 46.3 percent) of
soybean meal, with lower rumen undegradable protein content (20 vs 34.6
percent) (Schroeder, 2002). Pea seeds contain a high level of starch (54 percent),
but starch degradation rate is low (from 4 to 6 percent/hour), which is much
lower than that of cereals, e.g. barley (21 to 34 percent/hour) (Schroeder, 2002).

Dairy cattle. Peas can be included up to 40–50 percent (DM basis) in

concentrates fed to pre-weaned and weaned dairy calves. It can partly replace
maize grain, barley and/or soybean meal (Schroeder, 2002). Peas can be the
sole protein source for dairy heifers (Anderson et al., 2002).
Petit, Rioux and Ouellet (1997) observed non-significant differences in
DMI, milk yield and milk composition when feeding raw and extruded peas
as 20 percent in the diet of dairy cows. Khorasani et al. (2001) reported that
addition of peas in place of soybean meal at levels of 33, 67 and 100 percent of
the concentrate did not influence DMI (21.6 kg/day) and milk yield (30 kg/
day) in lactating dairy cattle. At higher levels of substitution, pea seeds should
be supplemented with better quality protein sources, especially with higher
126 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

concentrations of sulphur-containing amino acids. Anderson et al. (2002)

reported that peas can be included at up to 25 percent level in concentrates
for lactating cows. Vander Pol et al. (2008) demonstrated that field peas could
be safely fed to high-producing dairy cows at a 15 percent inclusion rate,
replacing both soybean meal and maize grain together. At this inclusion rate,
no adverse effects on milk yield or milk composition were observed. However,
Vander Pol et al. (2009) observed that peas should be coarsely ground for dairy
cow diets to avoid depression in total tract digestibility of nutrients.

Beef cattle. Peas can be used as an ingredient in creep feed to increase calf
weight gain, without impairing rumen fermentation and digestion (Gelvin et
al., 2004). Anderson et al. (2002) recommended an optimum inclusion rate
of between 33 and 67 percent in creep feed. However, it should not comprise
more than 25 percent in the diet of growing steers and heifers. Gilbery et al.
(2007) and Lardy et al. (2009) demonstrated that field peas can be included up
to 36 percent (diet DM basis) successfully in the ration of finishing beef cattle,
without negatively affecting growth and carcass characteristics. However,
Jenkins et al. (2011) recommended inclusion of 30 percent peas in the diet of
steers, without affecting steer performance and carcass characteristics.

Sheep and goats. Loe et al. (2004) recommended that field pea is a suitable
replacement for maize in lamb finishing diets and is at least equal in energy
density to maize. Lardy, Bauer and Loe (2002) recommended inclusion of 45
percent in a feedlot diet by replacing all soybean meal and part of the maize.
Lanza et al. (2003) reported that the replacement of soybean meal with peas
did not significantly affect growth and slaughter parameters, and preserved
meat quality. The use of pea seeds increases the proportions of total n-3 fatty
acids, and meat from lambs fed peas showed a more favourable n-6:n-3 ratio in
the intramuscular fatty acid composition (Scerra et al., 2011). Antunović et al.
(2013) recommended the addition of 15 percent pea (replacing maize) in alfafa
(Medicago sativa L.) hay-based diet of lactating dairy goats, without affecting
milk yield and composition.

Pigs. Due to large variation in nutrient composition and anti-nutritional

factors in peas, use of raw seeds is limited in pig diets. However, processing
methods such as extrusion can have positive effects on protein and amino acid
digestibility (O’Doherty and Keady, 2001; Stein and Bohlke, 2007). Starter
diets can contain up to 10 percent ground field peas and processing (extrusion,
toasting, steam pelleting) the peas could increase the maximum recommended
level up to 20 percent (Myer and Froseth, 1993). Above this level, growth
performances are generally reduced. This effect is mainly explained by a
low palatability of the diet, an imbalance in secondary limiting amino acids
(methionine, tryptophan) and a low digestibility or availability of amino acids
(Friesen, Kiarie and Nyachoti, 2006). For growing-finishing pigs, ground raw
peas could be included as the only source of supplemental protein in diet,
Pea 127

provided that the amino acid balance is optimal (methionine or methionine

+ tryptophan) (Vieira et al., 2003). It has been suggested that a mixture of
peas and rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) meal was a better supplement for
growing-finishing pigs than peas alone, since rapeseed meal is rich in sulphur-
containing amino acids while peas are a superior source of lysine (Castell and
Cliplef, 1993).

Poultry. Earlier studies recommended maximum levels for layer diets of

25 percent (Pérez-Maldonado, Mannion and Farrell, 1999) and 30 percent
for broilers (Farrell, Pérez-Maldonado and Mannion, 1999). It is also
recommended that, if the diet is balanced with synthetic amino acids, peas
can be included at 20 percent (Nalle, Ravindran and Ravindran, 2011) to 35
percent (Diaz et al., 2006) in broiler diets.
Commercial feed enzymes can be added to increase protein digestibility in
diets containing high levels of field peas (Cowieson, Acamovic and Bedford,
2003). Johnson, Deep and Classen (2014) observed a positive impact in
terms of improved performance and feed conversion efficiency in broilers on
phytase supplementation in pea-based diets. For laying hens, similar inclusion
levels are suggested by Pérez-Maldonado, Mannion and Farrell (1999).

Pea chips
Pea chips (by-product) are derived from milled peas during air classification
into pea starch fractions. It contains about 29.8 percent protein (DM basis) and
2.2 percent fat (DM basis). Igbasan and Guenter (1996) reported that pea chips
at 300 g/kg inclusion level with methionine supplementation were unable to
sustain broiler performance equal to birds fed a conventional maize-soybean
diet. This study suggested that pea chips should not be fed to broiler chicks in
excess of 150 g/kg (DM basis).
The authors found no information regarding feeding of pea plant residue
to animals.

SUMMARY
Peas are rich in protein and starch, while low in fibre. Anti-nutritional
factors present in peas are trypsin inhibitors, tannins, and lectins. Peas can
be included up to 50 percent in the diet of dairy calves, and it can serve as a
sole protein source for dairy heifers. Peas can be included up to 25 percent in
dairy cattle, and 30 percent in steer diets. Sheep and goat diets may contain
up to 45 and 15 percent of peas, respectively. Extrusion of pea improves its
digestibility. Maximum recommended level for extruded seeds in pig starter
diet is 20 percent, as against 10 percent for raw seeds. Ground raw peas could
be the only source of protein supplement in growing-finishing pigs, provided
that the amino acid balance is optimal. If the diet is balanced with synthetic
amino acids, peas can be included up to 30 percent in broiler and layer diets.
128 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

REFERENCES CITED IN CHAPTER 6

Anderson, V., Harrold, R., Landblom, D., Lardy, G., Schatz, B. & Schroeder, J.W. 2002.
A guide to feeding field peas to livestock: Nutrient content and feeding recommendations
for beef, dairy, sheep, swine and poultry. North Dakota State University, Extension service,
AS–1224: 11p.
Antunović, Z., Novoselec, J., Klir, Z. & Đidara, M. 2013. Inclusion of peas as protein sources in
the diet of dairy goats in organic breeding. Macedonian Journal of Animal Science, 3(1): 63–67.
Available at: http://www.mjas.ukim.edu.mk/files/MJAS-03-1-_2013_-150-Antunovic.pdf
Beentje, H. 2010. The Kew plant glossary: An illustrated dictionary of plant terms. Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew.
Black, M., Bewley, J.D. & Halmer, P. 2006. The encyclopedia of seeds: science, technology and
uses. CABI Publishing Series. ISBN: 0-85199-723-6.
Canbolat, O., Tamer, E. & Acikgoz, E. 2007. Chemical composition, metabolizable energy
and digestibility in pea seeds of differing testa and flower colours. Journal of Biological and
Environmental Sciences, 1(2): 59–65.
Castell, A.G. & Cliplef, R.L. 1993. Evaluation of pea screenings and canola meal as a
supplementary protein source in barley-based diets fed to growing-finishing pigs. Canadian
Journal of Animal Science, 73(1): 129–139.
Cowieson, A.J., Acamovic, T. & Bedford, M.R. 2003. Supplementation of diets containing pea
meal with exogenous enzymes: Effects of weight gain, feed conversion, nutrient digestibility
and gross morphology of the gastro-intestinal tract of growing broiler chicks. British Poultry
Science, 44(3): 427–437. DOI: 10.1080/00071660310001598292
Diaz, D.E., Morlacchini, M., Masoero, F., Moschini, M., Fusconi, G.& Piva, G. 2006. Pea
seeds (Pisum sativum), faba beans (Vicia faba var. minor) and lupin seeds (Lupinus albus var.
multitalia) as protein sources in broiler diets: effect of extrusion on growth performance.
Italian Journal of Animal Science, 5(1): 43–53.
Elzebroek, T. & Wind, K. 2008. Guide to cultivated plants. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Available at: http://biriz.biz/cay/caytohummiktari.pdf
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2012. FAOSTAT
Available at: http://faostat.fao.org.
Farrell, D.J., Pérez-Maldonado, R.A. & Mannion, P.F. 1999. Optimum inclusion of field peas,
faba beans, chick peas and sweet lupins in poultry diets. II. Broiler experiments. British
Poultry Science, 40(5): 674–680. DOI: 10.1080/00071669987070
Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ/FAO.
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
Friesen, M.J., Kiarie, E. & Nyachoti, C.M. 2006. Response of nursery pigs to diets with
increasing levels of raw peas. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 86: 531–533.
Gelvin, A.A., Lardy, G.P., Soto-Navarro, S.A., Landblom, D.G. & Caton, J.S. 2004. Effect
of field pea-based creep feed on intake, digestibility, ruminal fermentation, and performance
by nursing calves grazing native range in western North Dakota. Journal of Animal Science,
82(12): 3589–3599.
Gilbery, T.C., Lardy, G.P., Soto-Navarro, S.A., Bauer, M.L. & Anderson, V.L. 2007. Effect
of field peas, chickpeas and lentils on rumen fermentation, digestion and microbial protein
synthesis in receiving diets for beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 85(11): 3045–3053.
Pea 129

GNIS. 2011. Le pois protéagineux. In: des ressources en protéines à redécouvrir: les protéagineux.
Centre de ressources sur les semences et les espèces végétales.
Hartmann, H.T., Kofranek, A.M., Rubatzky, V.E. & Flocker, W.J. 1988. Plant science: Growth,
development and utilization of cultivated plants. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall Career and Technology,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.
Igbasan, F.A. & Guenter, W. 1996. The feeding value for broiler chickens of pea chips derived
from milled peas (Pisum sativum L.) during air classification into starch fractions. Animal Feed
Science and Technology, 61(1–4): 205–217. DOI: 10.1016/0377-8401(95)00936-1
Jenkins, K.H., Vasconcelos, J.T., Hinkle, J.B., Furman, S.A., de Mello, A.S. Jr., Senaratne,
L.S., Pokharel, S. & Calkins, C.R. 2011. Evaluation of performance, carcass characteristics,
and sensory attributes of beef from finishing steers fed field peas. Journal of Animal Science,
89(4): 1167–1172. DOI: 10.2527/jas.2009-2552
Johnson, L.A., Deep, A. & Classen, H. 2014. Digestibility and performance responses of broiler
chickens fed a pea based diet with different levels of dietary microbial phytase. University of
Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research Journal, 1(1): 39–44.
Khorasani, G.R., Okine, E.K., Corbett, R.R. & Kennelly, J.J. 2001. Nutritive value of peas for
lactating dairy cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 81(4): 541–551.
Available at: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.4141/A01-019
Lanza, M., Bella, M., Priolo, A. & Fasone, V. 2003. Peas (Pisum sativum L.) as an alternative
protein source in lamb diets: Growth performances, and carcass and meat quality. Small
Ruminant Research, 47(1): 63–68. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-4488(02)00244-4
Lardy, G.P., Bauer, M.L. & Loe, E.R. 2002. Feeding field pea in sheep diets. In: North Dakota
State University, Extension service, EB–76: 5p.
Lardy, G.P., Loken, B.A., Anderson, V.L., Larson, D.M., Maddock-Carlin, K.R., Ilse,
B.R., Maddock, R., Leupp, J.L., Clark, R., Paterson, J.A. & Bauer, M.L. 2009. Effects of
increasing field pea (Pisum sativum) level in high-concentrate diets on growth performance
and carcass traits in finishing steers and heifers. Journal of Animal Science, 87(10): 3335–3341.
DOI: 10.2527/jas.2009-1785.
Leterme, P., Beckers, Y. & Thewis, A. 1998. Anti-nutritional factors (ANF) in legume
seeds. In: Huisman, J., van der Poel, A.F.B., Liener, I.E., Recent Advances of Research
in Antinutritional Factors in Legume Seeds and Rapeseed, Proc. 3rd Intl. Workshop on
Antinutritional factors in Legume Seeds and Rapeseed. EAAP Publication, no. 93: 121–124.
Loe, E.R., Bauer, M.L., Lardy, G.P., Caton, J.S. & Berg, P.T. 2004. Field pea (Pisum sativum)
inclusion in corn-based lamb finishing diets. Small Ruminant Research, 53(1–2): 39–45.
Messiaen, C.M., Seif, A.A., Jarso, M. & Keneni, G. 2006. Pisum sativum L. Record from
Protabase. Brink, M. & Belay, G. (Editors). PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa /
Ressources végétales de l’Afrique tropicale), Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Mihailovic, V., Mikic, A., Eric, P., Vasiljevic, S., Cupina, B. & Katic, S. 2005. Protein pea in
animal feeding. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry., 21(5–6): 281–285.
Myer, R.O. & Brendemuhl, J.H. 2001. Miscellaneous Feedstuffs. pp. 1–26, in: A.J. Lewis and
L.L. Southern (eds.). Swine Nutrition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA.
Myer, R.O. & Froseth, J.A. 1993. Evaluation of two methods of heat processing for improving
the nutritional value of peas for swine. In: J. Huisman, A.F.B. van der Poel and I.E. Liener.
Recent Advances of Research in Antinutrtional Factors in Legume Seeds and Rapeseed,
130 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Antinutritional Factors in Legume Seeds

and Rapeseeds. EAAP Publication, no. 70.
Nalle, C.L., Ravindran, V. & Ravindran, G. 2011. Nutritional value of peas (Pisum sativum
L.) for broilers: apparent metabolisable energy, apparent ileal amino acid digestibility and
production performance. Animal Production Science, 51(2): 150–155. DOI: 10.1071/AN10100
O’Doherty, J.V. & Keady, U. 2001. The effect of expander processing and extrusion on the
nutritive value of peas for pigs. Animal Science, 72(1): 43–53.
DOI: 10.1017/S1357729800055545
Pérez-Maldonado, R.A., Mannion, P.F. & Farrell, D.J. 1999. Optimum inclusion of field peas,
faba beans, chick peas and sweet lupins in poultry diets. I. Chemical composition and layer
experiments. British Poultry Science, 40(5): 667–673. DOI: 10.1080/00071669987061
Perrot, C. 1995. Pea proteins: from their function in the seed to their use in animal feeding.
INRA Production Animales, 8(3): 151–164.
Petit, H.V., Rioux, R. & Ouellet, D.R. 1997. Milk production and intake of lactating cows fed
raw or extruded peas. Journal of Dairy Science, 80(12): 3377–3385.
DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76313-6
Prolea, 2008. Le pois sec, de la plante à ses utilisations. UNIP, France.
Scerra, M., Caparra, P., Foti, F., Cilione, C., Zappia, G., Motta, C. & Scerra, V. 2011.
Intramuscular fatty acid composition of lambs fed diets containing alternative protein sources.
Meat Science, 87(3): 229–233.
Schroeder, J.W. 2002. Feeding field peas to livestock. In: North Dakota State University,
Extension Service, EB–76: pp 11.
Stein, H.H. & Bohlke, R.A. 2007. The effects of thermal treatment of field peas (Pisum
sativum L.) on nutrient and energy digestibility by growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science,
85(6): 1424–1431. DOI: 10.2527/jas.2006-712
Vander Pol, M., Hristov, A.N., Zaman, S. & Delano, N. 2008. Peas can replace soybean meal
and corn grain in dairy cow diets. Journal of Dairy Science, 91(2): 698–703.
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2007-0543
Vander Pol, M., Hristov, A.N., Zaman, S., Delano, N. & Schneider, C. 2009. Effect of inclusion
of peas in dairy cow diets on ruminal fermentation, digestibility, and nitrogen losses. Animal
Feed Science and Technology, 150(1–2): 95–105. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2008.08.009
Vieira, S.L., Metz, M., Bartels, H.A. S. & Kessler, A.M. 2003. Nutritional evaluation of ground
pea (Pisum sativum) in diets for growing pigs. Revista Brasileria de Zootecnia, 32: 1705–1712.
 131

Chapter 7
Chickpea
COMMON NAMES
Bengal gram, Egyptian bean, gram pea (English); garbanzo (Spanish); pois
chiche (French); grão-de-bico, ervilha-de-bengala (Portuguese); kikkererwt
(Dutch); Kichererbse (German); kacang arab (Indonesian); cece (Italian);
nohut (Turkish).

DISTRIBUTION
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is thought to have originated in South-East
Anatolia and neighbouring Syrian Arab Republic and The Islamic Republic
of Iran, where the earliest remains date back to around 7 000 BC (Feedipedia,
2016). It was introduced to the Mediterranean Basin, Africa and the Indian
subcontinent before 2 000 BC. Chickpea grows from sea level up to an altitude
of 2 500 masl in areas where temperatures ranges from 15 to 29 °C (van der
Maesen, 1989). The chickpea, cultivated for its edible seeds, is a major legume
in the Mediterranean Basin, Asia and Australia.

DESCRIPTION
The chickpea plant is quick-growing, branched, and reaches a height between
20 and 60 cm, even up to 1 m. It has a deep taproot, down to 2 m, and many
lateral secondary roots exploring the upper layers (15–30 cm) of the soil. The
stems are hairy, simple or branched, straight or bent. Leaves are 5 cm long with
10 to 20 sessile, ovate to elliptical leaflets. Chickpea flowers are white, pink to
purplish or blue, typically papillonaceous and solitary. The pod is pubescent,
inflated and oblong, with 2 or 3 seeds. The seeds are variable in size (5 to 10
mm in diameter), shape (spherical to angular) and colour (creamy-white to
black) (Bejiga and van der Maesen, 2006; Ecoport, 2013).
Chickpea is not a labour-intensive crop, and its production needs low external
inputs compared with cereals. Chickpea is an important crop in mixed crop-
livestock production systems. It
is cultivated as a food-feed crop,
where the pods provide food for
© ICARDA/Athanasios Tsivelikas

humans and fodder for livestock.

In mixed crop-livestock systems,
fodder shortage is commonly a
serious constraint to obtaining
greater benefit from livestock
(Rangnekar, 2006).
There are two main types
of chickpea (kabuli and desi Photo 7.1.1 Plants of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) with flowers
 132 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

types), distinguished by seed size, shape and

colour. Desi types produce relatively small
seeds with an angular shape. The common seed
colours include various shades and combinations
of brown, yellow, green and black. Kabuli types
have large, rounded, seeds, characterized by
© ICARDA/Athanasios Tsivelikas

white or cream coloured seeds, or a beige-

coloured seed with ram’s head shape, thin seed
coat, smooth seed surface, white flowers, and is
called kabuli. Kabuli chickpea seeds are grown
in temperate regions, whereas the desi type is
grown in the semi-arid tropics (Naghavi and
Photo 7.1.2 Seeds of chickpea Jahansouz, 2005; Iqbal et al., 2006).

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR CULTIVATION

Chickpea is grown as a winter crop in the tropics, and as a summer or spring
crop in temperate environments. It is adapted to deep black soils in the cool
semi-arid areas of the tropics and sub-tropics, as well as temperate areas.
Chickpea is a cool-season grain legume that withstands hot temperatures
during fruiting and ripening (Ecoport, 2013) and notably is used as a source
of protein (Bejiga and van der Maesen, 2006). The plant is well adapted to
tropical climates with moderate temperatures and is successfully cultivated
under irrigation in the cool season of many tropical countries (Bejiga and van
der Maesen, 2006). It can grow with annual rainfall ranging from 500 to 1 800
mm (Bejiga and van der Maesen, 2006). It is tolerant of drought but does not
withstand the humid and hot low-land tropics. Rainstorms during flowering,
which may occur during the monsoon season, may harm the crop that is then
used mainly for fodder (van der Maesen, 1989). Early summer heat or frost
during flowering may also hamper crop yield (Ecoport, 2013).

PRODUCTION OF CHICKPEA
Chickpea is the fourth-largest pulse crop in the world, with a total production
of 11.6 million tonne from an area of 12.3 million ha and productivity of 0.94
tonne per ha (FAOSTAT, 2012). Major producing countries for chickpea are
India, Australia, Pakistan, Turkey, Myanmar, Ethiopia, The Islamic Republic of
Iran, United States of America, and Canada (FAOSTAT, 2013; ICRISAT, 2013).

CHICKPEA AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

Chickpea seeds
Chickpea seeds provide a high quality and cheap source of protein (19–25 percent,
DM basis; Table 7.1), for developing countries. It can be eaten raw, roasted or
boiled. It can also be processed into flour or dehulled grain (dal) and also play
a key role in alleviating protein-energy malnutrition (Manjunatha, 2007). Desi
type chickpea contains less starch (about 35 percent, DM basis) and more crude
fibre (about 10 percent, DM basis) than kabuli types (about 50 percent starch and
Chickpea 133

Table 7.1 Chemical composition of chickpea and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Parameter Seeds (desi) Seeds (kabuli) Bran (chuni) Straw Pod husk

Crude protein 18.2–26.5 18.8–25.7 12.5–18.5 2.8–8.8 3.5–10.5

Ether extract 3.3–7.8 5.1–8.0 2.8–4.2 0.5–1.6 0.9–3.0
Crude fibre 8.6–12.9 3.1–5.1 22.3–31.1 31.4–50.6 48.4
NDF 14.1–29.5 8.0–17.3 43.0 46.0–78.0 56.7–76.0
ADF 7.6–17.6 3.6–6.1 35.3 33.0–59.6 46.9–65.2
Ash 2.9–4.0 3.0–13.9 5.1–7.0 3.8–13.3 3.8–7.3
Lignin 0.2–1.3 0.0–0.5 8.5–15.8 3.3–6.1
Calcium 0.12–0.26 0.11–0.18 0.67–1.56 0.34–1.36
Phosphorus 0.19–0.47 0.33–0.50 0.27–0.32 0.05–0.44
Notes: DM (as fed) is 87.6–91.0 percent for desi seeds, 87.6–91.0 percent for kabuli seeds, 84.4–91.0 percent for
brans, percent for straw, and 86.6–88.0 percent for pod husks.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).

4 percent crude fibre, DM basis). The fat content ranges from 4 to 7 percent (DM
basis) in chickpea seeds. Chickpeas are particularly rich in lysine (6–7 percent of
the protein) but sulphur-containing amino acids and threonine may be deficient
for monogastric species. It is a good source of minerals (calcium, phosphorus,
magnesium, iron, and potassium) and vitamins (thiamine and niacin) (Wood and
Grusak, 2007, Marioli Nobile et al., 2013). Therefore, it has become an important
source of minerals and vitamins in the cereal-based daily diet of millions of
people in developing countries (Jukanti et al., 2012).

Digestibility. Organic matter digestibility of chickpeas in sheep was between

84 percent (Hadjipanayiotou, Economides and Koumas, 1985) and 92 percent
(Bampidis and Christodoulou, 2011), while energy and protein digestibility
were both about 79 percent (Hadjipanayiotou, Economides and Koumas,
1985). In rams, potential DM and NDF in sacco degradability were 45 percent
and 39 percent, respectively (Bruno-Soares et al., 2000). The effective rumen
protein degradability of chickpea is between 59 percent (ewes) and 75 percent
(non-lactating Holstein cows) (Bampidis and Christodoulou, 2011).

Chickpea crop residue (straw/ haulm)

Chickpea straw is the main by-product produced after chickpea grain
threshing, and is usually equal to or more than the seed yield by weight.
Chickpea straw can be used as a ruminant feed (Bampidis and Christodoulou,
2011) and it contains higher nutritive value than cereal straws (44–46 percent
total digestible nutrients and 4.5–6.5 percent protein, DM basis) and is
more palatable than wheat straw. It is suggested that animals should be
allowed to acclimatize to the taste before offering large quantities (Lardy
and Anderson, 2009; EI-Bordeny and Ebtehag, 2010; Kafilzadeh and Maleki,
2012). Compared with other straws, chickpea straw has a relatively high
nutritive value (e.g. ME = 7.7 MJ/kg DM for chickpea straw vs 5.6 MJ/kg DM
for wheat) (López et al., 2004; López et al., 2005; Bampidis and Christodoulou,
2011), but lower than that of other legume straws, such as purple vetch (Vicia
134 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

benghalensis L.), common vetch (Vicia sativa L.), winter vetch (Vicia villosa
Roth), broad bean (Vicia faba L.), lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) or pea (Pisum
sativum L.) (Bruno-Soares et al., 2000; López et al., 2005).
Dry matter digestibility and rumen degradability of chickpea straw were 10
to 42 percent higher than those of the cereal straws (Kafilzadeh and Maleki,
2012). The digestible energy and metabolizable energy content of chickpea
straw were 8.3 and 7.7 MJ/Kg DM, respectively (Bampidis and Christodoulou,
2011), indicating that the chickpea straw can be used as alternative forage in
ruminant diets.

Chickpea bran (chuni)

Chickpea bran is a by-product of chickpea processing. It is also called chuni
in many Asian countries, including India. Chuni is the residual by-product,
which contains broken pieces of endosperm including germ and a portion of
husk. Chickpea chuni is a good source of protein (13–19 percent, DM basis).

Chickpea husk
Chickpea husk contained (percent, DM basis) 76.0 NDF, 65.2 ADF, 6.1 acid
detergent lignin and 8.4 tannin (Sreerangaraju, Krishnamoorthy and Kailas,
2000). Authors have also observed that a part of the carbohydrate is bound to
tannins, which is protected from rumen fermentation but digested in the small
intestine. Chickpea husk contains a large rumen degradable DM fraction,
above 94 percent (Ngwe et al., 2012).

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Chickpea contain a number of secondary compounds that can impair nutrient
absorption from the gastro-intestinal tract (Bampidis and Christodoulou,
2011). Depending on the genotype, chickpea seeds contain variable amounts
of trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors that may decrease the feeding value for
pigs and poultry. Reported levels of inhibitors are in the 15–19 TIU/mg range,
lower than that of raw soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] (43–84 TIU/mg).
Heat treatments, such as cooking or extrusion, reduce the amount of trypsin
and chymotrypsin inhibitors (Bampidis and Christodoulou, 2011).

FEEDING OF SEED AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS

Cattle
Chickpea can be used as a high energy and protein feed in animal diets to
support milk and, meat production (Bampidis and Christodoulou, 2011).
Gilbery et al. (2007) observed greater overall DMI (7.59 vs 6.98 kg/day; P
≤0.07) and final BW (332 vs 323 kg; P ≤0.04) in growing cattle (254 kg BW) fed
chickpeas than control (maize and canola-meal-based diet). Illg, Sommerfeldt
and Boe (1987) observed that average daily gains were higher for heifers fed
25 and 50 percent chickpeas than those fed 0 and 75 percent in concentrates
of total mixed ration. Increasing chickpea inclusion rate from 0 to 75 percent
of concentrate DM resulted in a linear decrease in DMI and feed conversion
Chickpea 135

efficiency (Illg, Sommerfeldt and Boe, 1987). Chickpeas can be used as a

substitute for soybean meal and maize grain up to 50 percent (DM basis) of the
concentrate, or 25 percent (DM basis) of the whole diet of lactating cows. The
milk yield and fat contents increased with high inclusion rates of chickpeas,
and it has been attributed to the relatively high fat content of chickpeas
(Hadsell and Sommerfeldt, 1988).
Various studies also observed that replacing soybean meal and cereal
grains by chickpea seeds in the diet of heifer, steer or lamb diets improved the
apparent digestibility of crude protein and crude fat, with no adverse effect on
the digestibilities of DM, fibre and energy (Illg, Sommerfeldt and Boe, 1987;
Sommerfeldt and Lyon, 1988; Hadjipanayiotou, 2002). However, Gilbery et al.
(2007) observed no improvement in digestibility when replacing mixtures of
maize grain and rapeseed meal, field peas or lentils by chickpeas in steer diets.

Sheep and goats

Milk yield and milk composition were not affected by replacing soybean
meal and cereal grains with chickpeas, up to 30 percent (DM basis) of the
concentrates in the diets of lactating ewes (Christodoulou et al., 2005; Bampidis
and Christodoulou, 2011). In lambs and kids, the replacement of soybean meal
and cereal grains with chickpeas did not affect body weight gain, intake or feed
conversion ratio up to 42 percent inclusion of chickpeas in the dietary DM
(Hadjipanayiotou, 2002; Bampidis and Christodoulou, 2011). Similarly, partial
or total replacement of soybean meal and cereal grains with chickpeas did not
affect carcass weight, yield, or the physical and chemical characteristics of the
longissimus dorsi muscle (Lanza et al., 2003; Christodoulou et al., 2005).
In 6–8-month old lambs and wethers, chickpea husks included at 10 to 20
percent of the diet (DM basis) replacing de-oiled rice bran, or rice straw,
increased the digestibilities of DM, OM, NDF and ADF (Sreerangaraju,
Krishnamoorthy and Kailas, 2000; Ngwe et al., 2012). A reduction in the
digestibility of crude protein when chickpea husk was included at 10 percent
DM was reported by Ngwe et al. (2012).

Pigs
Studies showed that chickpeas can be fed raw, dehulled, cooked or extruded
to pigs (Batterham et al., 1993; Singh, Barneveld and Ru, 2005; Christodoulou
et al., 2006b). True ileal digestibility of all amino acids is similar to that of
soybean (full-fat or soybean meal) (Rubio, 2005; Singh, Barneveld and Ru,
2005). The ileal digestibility of chickpea starch was high (85 percent) in Iberian
pigs (Rubio et al., 2005).
Results on the use of raw chickpeas for pigs are contradictory. Inclusion of
up to 75 percent raw chickpeas (from low-fibre varieties or dehulled) replacing
soybean meal was found to have no adverse effect on daily gain, feed intake
and feed efficiency in growing pigs. Furthermore, pigs tolerated the trypsin and
chymotrypsin inhibitors of the chickpeas and showed no sign of organ toxicity
(Batterham et al., 1993). In another study, raw chickpeas fed to growing and
136 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

finishing pigs at 30 percent of the dietary DM resulted in a similar body

weight gain, feed intake and feed conversion ratio as soybean meal during the
whole rearing period (growing and finishing) (Mustafa et al., 2000). Chickpeas
included at 10–20 percent (Pennisi et al., 1994), 26 percent (Visitpanich,
Batterham and Norton, 1985), and in one study 75 percent (Batterham et
al., 1993) of the diet DM had no effect on carcass yield, percentage of lean
meat and overall meat quality. However, Mustafa et al. (2000) reported lower
crude protein digestibility and weight gain in growing pigs fed 30 percent raw
chickpeas. Christodoulou et al. (2006b) observed that even 10 percent inclusion
of raw chickpeas in the diet of finishing pig reduced weight gain and feed
conversion ratio compared with the soybean meal controlled diet.
Extruded chickpeas included at up to 30 percent, in the diets of growing and
finishing pigs, fully replaced the soybean meal with positive effects on body
weight gain and feed conversion ratio (Christodoulou et al., 2006b), and with
no effect on meat quality (Christodoulou et al., 2006c). The positive effect of
extrusion may be due to the improved utilization of starch, fat and protein of
extruded chickpeas by the pigs (Bampidis and Christodoulou, 2011).

Poultry
The digestibility and biological value of chickpea nutrients are high for
poultry (Brenes et al., 2008; Nalle, 2009). However, due to the presence of
anti-nutritional factors, raw chickpeas have been reported to increase pancreas
weight in growth birds, which may indicate some toxicity (Farrell, Pérez-
Maldonado and Mannion, 1999; Viveros et al., 2001).

Broilers. Brenes et al. (2008) observed decreased growth in growing chickens

when raw chickpeas were introduced at 10 percent level. It has also been
observed that the inclusion of raw chickpeas led to decreased growth
performance and an increased feed conversion ratio when used at rates above
15–20 percent in growing chicken diets (Viveros et al., 2001; Christodoulou
et al., 2006a). Katogianni et al. (2008) also observed reduced growth rate in
broilers with 50 and 75 percent replacement of soybean expeller by chickpea.
The positive effect of thermal treatments such as pelleting or autoclaving
has been reported by several authors (Farrell, Pérez-Maldonado and Mannion,
1999; Viveros et al., 2001; Christodoulou et al., 2006a;). Extrusion allowed
inclusion of up to 20 percent chickpeas in diets for young broilers, whereas
raw chickpeas reduced performance (Brenes et al., 2008). In turkeys, inclusion
of 20 percent extruded chickpeas did not reduce performance, and extreme
inclusion rates of up to 80 percent resulted in a reduction of only 8 percent
in growth (Christodoulou et al., 2006b). The recommendation is to limit
chickpeas to 5–10 percent in starter diets and 10–15 percent in grower and
finisher diets (DM basis). Higher levels up to 20 percent could be used with
heat-processed chickpeas.
Chickpea 137

Layers. Inclusion rates of chickpeas as high as 25 to 40 percent in layer diets

were shown to maintain egg production (Pérez-Maldonado, Mannion and
Farrell, 1999; Garsen et al., 2007). Robinson and Singh (2001) observed that
dehulling chickpeas, or applying thermal treatments such as pelleting did
not change the laying rate but improved layer body weight. Garsen et al.
(2007) observed that when used as a substitute for maize grain, chickpeas
may decrease egg yolk colour, which has to be considered in feed formulation
(Garsen et al., 2007).

SUMMARY
Chickpea straw has higher nutritive value than cereal straws. It is palatable
and can be used as a ruminant feed. Chickpea bran (chuni) is a good source
of protein (13–19 percent, DM basis) for ruminants. Chickpeas can be used
as a substitute for soybean meal and maize grain up to 50 percent of the
concentrate in large and small ruminant diets. Extruded chickpeas can be
included up to 30 percent in the diets of growing and finishing pigs. The
recommendation is to limit raw chickpeas to 5–10 percent in starter diets,
and up to 10–15 percent in grower and finisher pig diets. Heat processed
chickpeas can be included up to 20 percent in broiler and layer diets.

REFERENCES CITED IN CHAPTER 7

Bampidis, V.A. & Christodoulou V. 2011. Chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) in animal nutrition: A
review. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 168(1–2): 1–20.
DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.098
Batterham, E.S., Saini, H.S., Andersen, L.M. & Baigent, R.D. 1993. Tolerance of growing
pigs to trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors in chickpeas (Cicer arietinum) and pigeonpeas
(Cajanus cajan). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 61(2): 211–216.
Bejiga, G. & van der Maesen, L.J.G. 2006. Cicer arietinum L. Record from Protabase. Brink,
M. & Belay, G. (Editors). PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa / Ressources végétales
de l’Afrique tropicale), Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Brenes, A., Viveros, A., Centeno, C., Arija, I. & Marzo, F. 2008. Nutritional value of raw and
extruded chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) for growing chickens. Spanish Journal of Agricultural
Research, 6(4): 537–545.
Available at: http://www.inia.es/gcontrec/pub/537-545_Nutritional_1228219737421.pdf
Bruno-Soares, A.M., Aberu, J.M.F., Guedes, C.V.M. & Dias-da-Silva, A.A. 2000. Chemical
composition, DM and NDF degradation kinetics in rumen of seven legume straws. Animal
Feed Science and Technology8, 83(1): 75–80. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8401(99)00113-3
Christodoulou, V., Bampidis, V.A., Hucko, B., Ploumi, K., Iliadis, C., Robinson, P.H. &
Mudrik, Z. 2005. Nutritional value of chickpeas in rations of lactating ewes and growing
lambs. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 118(3–4): 229–241.
DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2004.10.017
Christodoulou, V., Bampidis, V.A., Hucko, B., Iliadis, C.& Mudrik, Z. 2006a. Nutritional value
of chickpeas in rations of broiler chickens. Archiv für Geflügelkunde, 70(3): 112–118.
138 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Christodoulou, V., Bampidis, V.A., Sossidou, E., Ambrosiadis, J., Hucko, B., Iliadis, C. &
Kodes, A. 2006b. The use of extruded chickpeas in diets for growing-finishing pigs. Czech
Journal of Animal Science, 51(8): 334–342.
Available at: http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/52309.pdf
Christodoulou, V., Ambrosiadis, J., Sossidou, E., Bampidis, V., Arkoudilos, J., Hucko, B.
& Iliadis, C. 2006c. Effect of replacing soybean meal by extruded chickpeas in the diets of
growing-finishing pigs on meat quality. Meat Science, 73(3): 529–535.
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.02.008
Ecoport. 2013. Ecoport database. Ecoport. Available at: http://www.feedpedia.org/node/16585
IBEI-Bordeny, N. E. & Ebtehag, I.M. Abou-Elenin. 2010. Nutritional evaluations of some crop
residuals as a roughage sources for feeding lambs. Journal of Animal and Poultry Production
Mansoura University, 1(12): 677–689.
FAOSTAT. 2012. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations- Statistics Division.
Available at: http://faostat.fao.org/
FAOSTAT. 2013. FAO Statistics Division. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org/
Farrell, D.J., Perez-Maldonado, R.A. & Mannion, P.F. 1999. Optimum inclusion of field peas,
faba beans, chick peas and sweet lupins in poultry diets. II. Broiler experiments. British
Poultry Science, 40(5): 674–680. DOI: 10.1080/00071669987070
Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ/FAO
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
Garsen, A., Dotas, D., Florou-Paneri, P. & Nikolakakis, I. 2007. Performance and egg quality
traits of layers fed diets containing increasing levels of chickpea. Epitheorese zootechnikes
Epistemes (Animal Science Reviews), 36: 3–14.
Gilbery, T.C., Lardy, G.P., Soto-Navarro, S.A., Bauer, M.L. & Anderson, V.L. 2007. Effect
of field peas, chickpeas and lentils on rumen fermentation, digestion and microbial protein
synthesis in receiving diets for beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 85(11): 3045–3053.
DOI: 10.2527/jas.2006-651
Hadjipanayiotou, M. 2002. Replacement of soybean meal and barley grain by chickpeas in lamb
and kid fattening diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 96(1–2): 103–109.
DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8401(01)00339-X
Hadjipanayiotou, M., Economides, S. & Koumas, A. 1985. Chemical composition, digestibility
and energy content of leguminous grain and straws grown in a Mediterranean region. Annales
de Zootechnie, 34(1): 23–30. Available at: http://animres.edpsciences.org/articles/animres/
pdf/1985/01/Ann.Zootech._0003-424X_1985_34_1_ART0003.pdf
Hadsell, D.L. & Sommerfeldt, J.L. 1988. Chickpeas as a protein and energy supplement for
high producing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 71(3): 762–772. DOI: 10.3168/jds.
S0022-0302(88)79616-2
ICRISAT. 2013. Chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Available at: http://www.icrisat.org/crop-chickpea.htm.
Illg, D.J., Sommerfeldt, J.L. & Boe, A.A. 1987. Chickpeas as a substitute for corn and soybean
meal in growing heifer diets. Journal of Dairy Science, 70(10): 2181–2185.
DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(87)80272-2
Iqbal, A., Ateeq, N., Khalil, I.A., Perveen, S. & Saleemullah S. 2006. Physicochemical
characteristics and amino acid profile of chickpea cultivars grown in Pakistan. Journal of
Foodservice, 17: 94–101. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-4506.2006.00024.x
Chickpea 139

Jukanti, A.K., Gaur, P.M., Gowda, C.L. & Chibbar, R.N. 2012. Nutritional quality and health
benefits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): A review. British Journal of Nutrition, 108: S11–26.
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114512000797
Kafilzadeh, F. & Maleki, E. 2012. Chemical composition, in vitro digestibility and gas
production of straws from different varieties and accessions of chickpea. Journal of Animal
Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 96(1): 111–118. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2011.01131.x
Katogianni, I., Zoiopoulos, P.E., Adamidis, C. & Fegeros, K. 2008. Substituting chickpeas for
soybeans in diets for broilers fattened according to the European Community organic regime.
Archiv für Geflügelkunde, 72(4): 152–156.
Lanza, M., Bella, M., Barbagallo, D., Fasone, V., Finocchiaro, L. & Priolo, L. 2003. Effect of
partially or totally replacing soybean meal and maize by chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) in
lamb diets: growth performances, carcass and meat quality. Animal Research, 52(3): 263–270.
DOI: 10.1051/animres:2003019
Lardy, G. & Anderson. 2009. Alternative feeds for ruminants. NDSU extension service North
Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota 58108. AS–1182 (Revised).
López, S., Prieto, M., Dijkstra, J., Dhanoa, M.S. & France, J. 2004. Statistical evaluation of
mathematical models for microbial growth. International Journal of Food Microbiology,
96(3): 289–300. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.03.026
López, S., Davies, D.R., Giraldez. F.J., Dhanoa, M.S., Dijkstra, J & France, J. 2005. Assessment
of nutritive value of cereal and legume straw based on chemical composition and in vitro
digestibility. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85(9): 1550–1557.
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2136
Manjunatha, B.L. 2007. Physiological basis of seed hardening in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
MSc. University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, 94p.
Marioli Nobile, C., Carreras, J., Grosso, R., Inga, M., Silva, M., Aguilar, R., Allende, M, Badini,
R. & Martinez, M. 2013. Proximate composition and seed lipid components of “kabuli” type
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) from Argentina. Agricultural Sciences, 4(12): 729–737.
DOI: 10.4236/as.2013.412099
Mustafa, A.F., Thacker, P.A., McKinnon, J.J., Christensen, D.A. & Racz, V.J. 2000. Nutritional
value of feed grade chickpeas for ruminants and pigs. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,
80(11): 1581–1588. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0010(20000901)80:11<1581::AID-JSFA681>3.0.CO;2-D
Naghavi, M.R. & Jahansouz, M.R. 2005. Variation in the agronomic and morphological traits
of Iranian chickpea accessions. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 47(3): 375–379.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7909.2005.00058.x
Nalle, C.L. 2009. Nutritional evaluation of grain legumes for poultry. PhD Thesis, Massey
University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Ngwe, T., Nukui, Y., Oyaizu, S., Takamoto, G., Koike, S., Ueda, K., Nakatsuji, H., Kondo,
S. & Kobayashi, Y. 2012. Bean husks as a supplemental fibre for ruminants: Potential use
for activation of fibrolytic rumen bacteria to improve main forage digestion. Animal Science
Journal, 83(1): 43–49. DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2011.00916.xDocument9
Pennisi, P., Bosi, P., Avondo, M. & D’Urso, G. 1994. Prove di impiego del cece (Cicer
arietinum L.) nell′alimentazione del suino magro. Rivista di Suinicoltura, 10: 61–64.
Pérez-Maldonado, R.A., Mannion, P.F. & Farrell, D.J. 1999. Optimum inclusion of field peas,
faba beans, chick peas and sweet lupins in poultry diets. I. Chemical composition and layer
140 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

experiments. British Poultry Science, 40(5): 667–673. DOI: 10.1080/00071669987061

Rangnekar, D.V. 2006. Livestock and livelihoods of the underprivileged communities in
India: A review. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. pp 72.
Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10568/29061
Robinson, D. & Singh, D.N. 2001. Alternative protein sources for laying hens. RIRDC
publication 00/144. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Kingston
ACT, Australia. pp 85.
Available at: https://www.aecl.org/assets/RD-files/Outputs-2/DAQ-241AA-Final-Report.pdf
Rubio, L.A. 2005. Ileal digestibility of defatted soybean, lupin and chickpea seed meals
in cannulated Iberian pigs: I. Proteins. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,
85(8): 1313–1321. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.1963
Rubio, L.A., Pedrosa, M.M., Pérez, A., Cuadrado, C., Burbano, C. & Muzquiz, M. 2005. Ileal
digestibility of defatted soybean, lupin and chickpea seed meals in cannulated Iberian pigs: II.
Fatty acids and carbohydrates. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85(8): 1322–
1328. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.1964
Singh, D.N., Barneveld, R.J. van. & Ru, Y.J. 2005. Digestibility of amino acids and energy
in mung bean, chickpea and lablab when fed to pigs. In: Paterson, J.E. (Ed.) Manipulating
pig production X. Proceedings of Tenth Biennial Conference of The Australian Pig Science
Association, Christchurch, New Zealand, 27–30 November 2005: 268.
Sommerfeldt, J.L. & Lyon, K.A. 1988. Ration digestibilities and ruminal characteristics in steers
fed chickpeas. Journal of Dairy Science, 71(3): 843–847.
DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(88)79625-3
Sreerangaraju, G., Krishnamoorthy, U. & Kailas, M.M. 2000. Evaluation of Bengal gram
(Cicer arietinum) husk as a source of tannin and its interference in rumen and post-rumen
nutrient digestion in sheep. Animal Feed Science And Technology, 85(1–2): 131–138.
DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8401(00)00131-0
van der Maesen, L.J.G. 1989. Cicer arietinum L. Record from Proseabase. van der Maesen,
L.J.G.; Somaatmadja, S. (Eds). PROSEA (Plant Resources of South-East Asia) Foundation,
Bogor, Indonesia.
Visitpanich, T., Batterham, E.S. & Norton, B.W. 1985. Nutritional value of chickpea (Cicer
arietinum) and pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) meals for growing pigs and rats. I. Energy content
and protein quality. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 36(2): 327–335.
Viveros, A., Brenes, A., Elices, R., Arija, I. & Canales, R. 2001. Nutritional value of raw and
autoclaved kabuli and desi chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) for growing chickens. British
Poultry Science, 42(2): 242–251. DOI: 10.1080/00071660120048500
Wood, J.A. & Grusak, M.A. 2007. Nutritional value of chickpea. pp. 101-142, in: S.S. Yadav,
R. Redden, W. Chen and B. Sharma (eds). Chickpea breeding and management. CABI,
Wallingford, UK.
 141

Chapter 8
Cowpea
COMMON NAMES
Asparagus bean, black-eyed pea, catjang, catjang cowpea, Chinese long bean,
clay pea, cream pea, crowder pea, pea bean, purple-hull pea, southern pea, sow
pea, yard-long bean [subsp. sequipedalis] (English) dolique asperge, dolique
mongette, haricot asperge, haricot indigène, niébé, pois à vaches (French);
feijão-espargo, feijão-fradinho (Portuguese); costeño, frijol de costa, judía
catjang, judía espárrago, rabiza (Spanish); adua, ayi, too, tipielega, yo, tuya,
saau (Ghana); wake, ezo, nyebbe, ngalo, azzo, dijok, alev, arebe, lubia, mongo,
ewa, akedi, akoti (Nigeria); kunde (Swahili); Kedesche, sona, kadje, tombing,
isanje (Togo); imbumba, indumba, isihlumaya (Zulu); kacang bol, kacang
merah, kacang toonggak, kacang béngkok (Indonesian).

DISTRIBUTION
Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] has been domesticated and cultivated
in Africa for centuries. It is now grown worldwide, especially in the tropics,
between latitudes 40°N to 30°S and below an altitude of 2 000 masl (Ecocrop,
2009). Cowpea is grown in over two-thirds of the developing world as
a companion or relay crop with major cereals. The largest producers are
Nigeria, Niger, Brazil, Haiti, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Australia, and the
United States of America (FAOSTAT, 2013).

DESCRIPTION
Cowpea is often called “black-eyed pea” due to its black- or brown-ringed
hilum. Cowpea is called the “hungry-season crop”, because it is the first crop to
be harvested before the cereal crops (Gomez, 2004). Its fresh or dried seeds, pods
and leaves are commonly used as human food. Varieties may be short and bushy,
prostrate, or tall and vine-like. Canopy heights can be 60 to 90 cm, depending
on the genotype. The upright stems are
hollow and hairless, roughly 1 cm wide. The
stems of twining varieties are thinner. The
leaves are 10 cm long and 8 cm wide. Leaves
are trifoliate, egg-shaped, and hairless. The
two lateral leaves are asymmetrical, and the
© CIAT/Daniel Debouck

terminal leaf is symmetrical. The plant also

has extra floral nectaries, small pores on its
leaves and stems of leaves that release nectar
and attract beneficial insects. The branchless
inflorescence produces stemmed flowers, 2.5 Photo 8.1.1 Seeds of cowpea [Vigna
cm long, along the main axis. The flowers unguiculata (L.) Walp.]
 142 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

can be purple or white. The

lowermost whorl of leaves under
the flower is bell-shaped. The
lobes of the flower are fused, and
the lateral petals are shorter than
the upper petal. The seeds are
born in 8–15 cm long, slender,
round, two-valved pods growing
from the leaf axils. There are
roughly 6–13 seeds per pod
growing within spongy tissue.
The kidney-shaped seeds are
© NDDB

white with a black mark around

Photo 8.1.2 Plants of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] the scar that marks the point of
cultivated for fodder attachment to the seed stalk.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR

CULTIVATION
Cowpea is a warm-season crop
that can be produced in semi-
arid regions and dry savannas.
Cowpea grows in savannah
vegetation at temperatures
ranging from 25 to 35 °C and
in areas where annual rainfall
© IITA

ranges from 750 to 1 100 mm

Photo 8.1.3 Different pod types of cowpea [Vigna
unguiculata (L.) Walp.]. (Madamba et al., 2006). Cowpea
is tolerant of shading and can be
combined with tall cereal plants such as sorghum and maize (FAO, 2013). It is
better adapted to sandy soils and droughty conditions than soybean [Glycine
max (L.) Merr.] (TJAI, 2010). Cowpea grows on a wide range of soils provided
they are well drained (Madamba et al., 2006). It is recommended to avoid
moisture laden soil or any type of soil that tends to retain too much moisture
for the growth of this plant.

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Cowpeas contain anti-nutritional factors such as lectins, trypsin inhibitors and
tannins (Makinde et al., 1997). Anti-nutritional factors can be eliminated with
appropriate processing methods. Most anti-nutritional factors are heat-labile
(Emiola and Ologhobo, 2006) and so heat treatment could be the appropriate
method to denature anti-nutritional factors. Oven heating, micro-waving,
boiling, autoclaving and infrared irradiation are some of the heat treatment
methods that can be used to reduce the anti-nutritional factors in cowpeas
(dBede, 2007). Ravhuhali et al. (2011) reported that some cultivars had high
Cowpea 143

Table 8.1 Chemical composition of cowpea and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Seeds, heat Aerial part, Aerial part, Hay Haulm Pod husk
Parameter Seeds
treated fresh dried

Crude protein 25.2 26.1 18.1 17.1 14.8 13.7 12.7

Ether extract 1.6 1.7 2.8 1.7 2.2 0.7
Crude fibre 5.6 4.1 24.1 32.6 29.9 31.8
NDF 16.6 21.3 38.6 43.2 49.0 49.0 54.2
ADF 6.5 27.1 32.8 37.2 35.4 41.1
Ash 4.1 4.8 11.3 15.8 13.7 11.0 7.9
Lignin 0.8 4.6 8.4 8.0 8.5
Calcium 0.11 0.09 1.25 1.31 1.14
Phosphorus 0.42 0.27 0.24 0.39 0.26

Notes: DM (as fed) is 89.9 percent for seeds, 87.9 percent for heat treated seeds, 20.9 percent for fresh aerial part, 92.5
percent for dried aerial part, 91.2 percent for hay, 95.0 percent for haulm, and 51.6 percent for pod husk.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016)

amounts of condensed tannins (0.11 percent, DM basis), but these did not
exert negative effects on intake and digestibility.

COWPEA AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

Ruminants
Cowpea seeds. Cowpea seeds contain, on DM basis, about 24 percent protein,
53 percent carbohydrates and 2 percent fat (FAO, 2012; Table 8.1). The
protein and in vitro dry matter digestibility (DMD) of cowpeas indicated
that they could efficiently replace maize or cottonseed meal in livestock diets.
Though not as efficient as soybean as a protein source, cowpea was capable
of accumulating useful levels of protein and digestible DM under the variable
growing conditions of the study (Rao and Northup, 2009).
Paduano et al. (1995) reported that supplementing cowpeas to sheep
fed poor quality roughages resulted in improved DMI and organic matter
(OM) digestibility. Singh et al. (2006) reported that replacing 100 percent of
groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cake with cowpea seeds in the diet of growing
lamb had a positive effect on roughage intake and growth performance. Sarwar
et al. (1995) reported that cowpeas used as a source of urease for buffalo male
calves fed ureatreated straw resulted in increased body weight gain and DMD.

Cowpea seed waste. Cowpea seed waste and cowpea hulls (which result from
the dehulling of the seeds for food) have been used to replace conventional
feedstuffs in some developing countries (Ikechukwu, 2000). Olubunmi,
Oyedele and Odeyinka (2005) observed that cowpea seed waste successfully
replaced groundnut cake, maize bran or wheat offal in goat diets.

Cowpea forage. Cowpea provides high quality forage, rich in protein (14–24
percent, DM basis). Leaves and shoots usually contain more than 20 percent
protein (DM basis), depending on the stage of maturity and seasonal climatic
144 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

variation (Mullen, 1999). Organic matter digestibility of cowpea forage has

been reported to be higher than 60 percent in ruminants (Cook et al., 2005;
Anele et al., 2011a).
In some African countries, several varieties of cowpea have been grown
together for both food and feed. It is widely intercropped with maize,
sorghum and millet (Cook et al., 2005). Dual-purpose varieties, although
lower in protein than forage-type varieties, require little or no input, and
provide sufficient biomass in marginal lands, without additional fertilizer,
to provide a livestock feed supplement during the dry season (Anele et al.,
2011a). Maize-cowpea intercrops have considerable potential as forage, and
also these intercrops have a higher DMD than maize or cowpea grown alone.
Farmers may harvest up to 0.4 tonne/ha of cowpea leaves in a few cuts
with no noticeable reduction in seed yield. A potential yield of 4 tonne/ha
of hay can be achieved with good management from a pure stand of cowpea.
However, the world average yield of cowpea fodder is 0.5 tonne/ha (air-dried
leafy stems) as reported by Madamba et al. (2006). Mehdi et al. (2009) reported
that the optimum forage quality occurs at the milky stage. Mullen (1999)
reported that cowpea forage is suitable for growing, fattening and lactating
animals, including dairy cows.

Cowpea pasture. Holzknecht, Poppi and Hales (2000) reported that cowpea
can be grazed by steers with no adverse effect on live-weight gain during late
summer to early autumn in Australia. However, in India, cowpea did not
re-grow adequately to provide late autumn grazing (Singh et al., 2010). In
the south-eastern United States of America, cowpea was incorporated in a
subtropical grass pasture for grazing cows and calves, but did not persist in
July and August (Vendramini, Arthington and Adesogan, 2012).

Cowpea haulms. Cowpea haulms have low protein content (14 percent DM,
basis) and high fibre content (33 percent, DM basis). The protein content of
cowpea haulm differs widely between leaves (22 percent, DM basis) and stems
(8 percent, DM basis) (Singh et al., 2010). Due to seasonal differences in the
quality of haulms, care must be taken when handling to minimize loss of leaves
(Anele et al., 2012). Dry matter digestibility of cowpea haulm is between 65
and 70 percent (Savadogo et al., 2000; Karachi and Lefofe, 2004), and differs
greatly between leaves (60–75 percent) and stems (50–60 percent). Because
of this difference, the proportion of leaves and stems in the haulm affects its
nutritional value (Singh et al., 2010).
Anele et al. (2010) observed that cowpea haulm can be used for sheep as a
supplement to poor quality basal diets. Anele et al. (2011b) also observed that
cowpea haulms can provide adequate protein and energy to sustain ruminant
production during an extended dry season.
Savadogo, Zemmelink and Nianogo (2000) reported that the intake of
cowpea haulms by sheep can reach 86 g OM/kg BW0.75/day. However,
Cowpea 145

selective consumption of leaves resulted in higher intakes of protein and

digestible OM than expected from the offered haulms. Rams ate up to 60 g
OM/kg BW0.75/d of cowpea haulms as a supplement to sorghum stover.
Although supplementation decreased total DMI, this was compensated for by
an increase in stover digestibility (Savadogo et al., 2000). In sheep fed 200–400
g/day of cowpea haulms as a supplement to a basal diet of sorghum stover,
the resulting average live-weight gain (80 g/day) was twice that obtained with
sorghum fodder alone (Singh et al., 2003). In male Ethiopian Highland sheep,
supplementation of maize stover with cowpea haulms (150 or 300 g DM/
day) improved DM and protein intake, OM digestibility, average daily gain,
final live weight, carcass cold weight and dressing percentage (Koralagama
et al., 2008). Anele et al. (2010) reported higher DMI when cowpea haulms
were used as a supplement for West African dwarf sheep fed a basal diet of
napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach.). The authors suggested that
cowpea haulms can be utilized as a supplement for livestock production and
its inclusion in the diet of sheep had no deleterious effects while improving the
haematological and serum biochemical variables.

Cowpea hay. If cowpea is specifically grown for hay, cutting should be done
when 25 percent of the pods are coloured (Van Rij, 1999). Well-cured cowpea
haulms are a useful feed and can make excellent hay, provided that the leaves
are well preserved (too much exposure to the sun makes them fall off) and that
the stems are adequately wilted (Cook et al., 2005; FAO, 2013). In Australia,
the ideal time to cut a cowpea crop for hay is at peak flowering, which occurs
70–90 days after sowing (Cameron, 2003).
Singh et al. (2010) reported that lambs (Local × Corridale) fed a diet based
on organically produced cowpea hay and barley grain had similar DMI and
nutrient digestibility as that from a conventional diet produced with inorganic
fertilizers. Feeding cowpea hay (30 percent diet; native grass-hay-based diet)
in crossbred growing steers improved LWG by nearly 250 g/day (Varvikko,
Khalili and Crosse, 1992). Umunna, Osuji and Nsahlai (1997) also observed
that feeding cowpea hay at 1 percent of body weight in cereal-legume cropping
systems, led to LWG of 280 to 373 g/day in steers. In calves fed teff straw
[Eragrostis tef (Zuccagni) Trotter)] + cowpea hay supplemented at up to 1.5
percent BW was found as efficient as hyacinth bean hay [Lablab purpureus
(L.) Sweet] in improving DMI and teff straw degradability (Abule et al., 1995).
In Zimbabwe, cowpea hay was used as a supplement at 30 percent of the
diet to improve ME intake and microbial protein supply when the lambs
consumed low-quality forages such as maize stover (Chakeredza, ter Meulen
and Ndlovu, 2002).

Cowpea silage. Cook et al. (2005) reported that excellent silage can be made
by harvesting a mixed crop of cowpea and forage sorghum, millet or maize.
Cowpea haulms (vines) can be used to make silage through the addition
146 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

of water and 5 percent molasses. This ensiling process enhanced feed value
but was not sufficient to fulfil the requirements of goats (Solaiman, 2007).
Intercropping of maize and cowpea at a seed ratio of 70:30 increased fodder
production and produced silage of high digestibility (higher than maize silage
alone supplemented with urea) when harvested at 35 percent DM (Azim et
al., 2000).

Pigs
Cowpea seeds. Makinde et al. (1997) observed that feeding raw cowpeas gave
lower growth performance in weaner pigs, which may be due to antigenic
factors causing damage to the intestinal mucosa. However, the introduction
of creep feeding before weaning had some ameliorative effects. Physical
treatment such as dry fractionation or heating of cowpea beans may alleviate
adverse effects in weaner pigs due to antinutritional factors (Makinde et al.,
1996). Soaked and crushed cowpea beans ensiled with lactic acid bacteria
strains from sow milk were a valuable feed for weanling pigs (Martens and
Heinritz, 2012).

Cowpea forage. Cowpea forage can be a valuable source of protein (13 to 25

percent, DM basis) for pigs, though its level of fibre and NDF-bound N (24
to 40 percent N) may limit protein availability (Heinritz et al., 2012). Sarria et
al. (2010) observed that pigs fed a diet with 30 percent of the CP from cowpea
leaf meal had greater development of the large intestine and less development
of the small intestine, compared with pigs fed the control diet (maize and
soybean). It is concluded that the cowpea leaf meal was well accepted by the
pigs, increasing consumption by 8 percent without affecting the apparent
digestibility of DM and gross energy. However, the digestibility of CP was
decreased in a curvilinear way with increasing cowpea leaf meal in the diet
up to 30 percent. Using cowpea silage in a mixture with maize grain (40:60)
increased in vitro digestibility to 73 percent (Heinritz et al., 2012).

Poultry
Broilers. Trompiz et al. (2002) observed that dried and ground cowpeas
included at 16 percent in starter broiler diets had no negative effects. Chakam,
Teguia and Tchoumboue (2010) also observed that cooked and sun-dried
cowpea seeds included at up to 20 percent in the diet did not have deleterious
effects on LWG, feed conversion ratio, feed cost/kg live-weight, and carcass
quality. Dehulling, combined dehulling and roasting, or the addition of
enzymes (beta-glucanase at a level of 0.25 g/kg) increased feed intake, body
weight gain and protein intake when processed cowpeas were included at 15
percent in chicken diets (Belal et al., 2011).
Broilers finished with cowpea had a higher carcass yield than broilers fed
black common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) (Defang et al., 2008). Sun-dried
cowpeas successfully replaced 75 percent of soybean meal in broiler diets (Lon-
Cowpea 147

Wo and Cino, 2000). The general conclusion is that inclusion of processed

cowpeas is feasible up to 15–20 percent in broiler diets, but deleterious at
higher levels. However, Eljack, Fadlalla and Ibrahim (2010) reported that the
inclusion of 30 percent cowpeas (replacing groundnut meal and sorghum)
improved weight gain, feed conversion ratio, dressing percentage and carcass
quality. Kur et al. (2013) observed that inclusion of treated cowpea seeds at 15
percent (DM basis) in broiler diets resulted in similar performance as from the
control diet (0 percent cowpea).

Layers. Hlungwani (2011) reported that layer hens fed a cowpea diet had
lower egg production during the first eight weeks, but then improved.
No additional information was found reporting on feeding of cowpea and
its by-products in the diets of layers.

Cowpea hulls. Cowpea hulls are an inexpensive potential feedstuff and have
been assessed as a replacer of conventional feedstuffs in poultry diets. Though
increasing levels of cowpea hulls decreased overall performance, it was
possible to include up to 25 percent cowpea hulls in diets of growing geese
(Ningsanond et al., 1992). For starter and finisher broilers, cowpea hulls were
used to replace maize offal and maize grain (Ikechukwu, 2000). Chicken fed
on raw cowpea hulls had a lower performance than those fed on conventional
diets, but inclusion of cowpea hulls up to 15 percent in starter and finisher diets
was more cost effective than conventional diets (Ikechukwu, 2000). There have
been attempts to reduce fibre in cowpea hulls by different physico-chemical
treatments such as soaking plus boiling or soaking for 3 days. It was shown
that soaking for 3 days reduced fibre and increased carbohydrate contents,
which may be due to fermentation during soaking (Adebiyi et al., 2010).

SUMMARY
Cowpea forage has high protein contents (14–24 percent, DM basis). Cowpea
hay can be recommended up to 30 percent in the diet of large and small
ruminants. Raw cowpea seeds and by-products (seed waste, hulls) can be
successfully used in the diets of small and large ruminants, however, they
cannot be recommended for use in pigs and poultry diets. Heat treatment
could be an appropriate method to denature the anti-nutritional factors
present in cowpea seeds. Heat treated seeds can be included up to 20 percent
in broiler diets. Cowpea hulls (which results from dehulling of seeds for food)
are low-cost potential feedstuffs for poultry diets, and can be included up to
15 percent in starter and finisher diets.
148 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

REFERENCES CITED IN CHAPTER 8

Abule, E., Umunna, N.N., Nsahlai, I.V., Osuji, P.O. & Alemu, Y. 1995. The effect of
supplementing teff (Eragrostis tef) straw with graded levels of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)
and lablab (Lablab purpureus) hays on degradation, rumen particulate passage and
intake by crossbred (Friesian × Boran (zebu)) calves. Livestock Production Science,
44(3): 221–228.
Adebiyi, O.A., Ologhobo, A.D., Adu, O.A. & Olasehinde, T.O. 2010. Evaluation of the
nutritional potentials of physically treated cowpea seed hulls in poultry feed. Emirates Journal
of Food and Agriculture, 22(3): 232–239. DOI: 10.9755/ejfa.v22i3.4893
Anele, U.Y., Arigbede, O.M., Sudekum, K.H., Ike, K.A., Oni, A.O., Olanite, J.A., Amole,
G.A., Dele, P.A.& Jolaosho, A.O. 2010. Effects of processed cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.
Walp) haulms as a feed supplement on voluntary intake, utilization and blood profile of West
African dwarf sheep fed a basal diet of Pennisetum purpureum in the dry season. Animal Feed
Science and Technology, 159(1–2): 10–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.05.004
Anele, U.Y., Sudekum, K.H., Arigbede, O.M., Welp, G., Oni, A.O., Olanite, J.A. & Ojo, O.V.
2011b. Agronomic performance and nutritive quality of some commercial and improved dual-
purpose cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) varieties on marginal land in Southwest Nigeria.
Grassland Science, 57(4): 211–218. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-697X.2011.00229.x
Anele, U.Y., Sudekum, K.H., Hummel, J., Arigbede, O.M., Oni, A.O., Olanite, J.A., Bottger,
C., Ojo, V.O. & Jolaosho, A.O. 2011a. Chemical characterization, in vitro dry matter and
ruminal crude protein degradability and microbial protein synthesis of some cowpea (Vigna
unguiculata L. Walp) haulm varieties. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 163(2–4): 161–
169. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.11.005
Anele, U.Y., Sudekum, K.H., Arigbede, O.M., Luttgenau, H., Oni, A.O., Bolaji, O.J.
& Galyean, M.L. 2012. Chemical composition, rumen degradability and crude protein
fractionation of some commercial and improved cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) haulm
varieties. Grass and Forage Science, 67(2): 210–218. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2494.2011.00835.x
Azim, A., Khan, A.G., Nadeem, M.A. & Muhammad, D. 2000. Influence of maize and cowpea
intercropping on fodder production and characteristics of silage. Asian-Australasia Journal of
Animal Sciences, 13(6): 781–784. DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2000.781
Belal, N.G., Abdelati, K.A., Albala, S. & Elawad, S. 2011. Effect of dietary processed cowpea
(Vigna unguiculata) seeds on broiler performance and internal organ weights. Research
Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 6: 6–11.
Available at: http://khartoumspace.uofk.edu/handle/123456789/17878
dBede, E.N. 2007. Effect of quenching on cookability of some food legumes. Food Control,
18(10): 1161–1164. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2005.03.005
Cameron, A.G. 2003. Forage and grain cowpeas. Agnote No. E34, Department of Primary
Industry, Fisheries and Mines. Northern Territory Government.
Chakam, V.P., Teguia, A. & Tchoumboue, J. 2010. Performance of finisher broiler chickens
as affected by different proportions of cooked cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata) in the
grower-finisher diet. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development,
10(4): 2427–2438.
Chakeredza, S., ter Meulen, U. & Ndlovu, L. R. 2002. Effect of cowpea hay, groundnut hay,
cotton seed meal and maize meal supplementation to maize stover on intake, digestibility,
Cowpea 149

microbial protein supply and acetate kinetics in weaner lambs. Tropical Animal Health and
Production, 34(1): 49–64.
Cook, B.G., Pengelly, B.C., Brown, S.D., Donnelly, J.L., Eagles, D.A., Franco, M.A., Hanson,
J., Mullen, B.F., Partridge, I.J., Peters, M. & Schultze-Kraft, R. 2005. Tropical forages:
An interactive selection tool. CSIRO, DPI&F(Qld), CIAT and ILRI, Brisbane, Australia.
Available at: http://www.tropicalforages.info/
Defang, H.F., Teguia, A., Awah-Ndukum, J., Kenfack, A., Ngoula, F. & Metuge, F. 2008.
Performance and carcass characteristics of broilers fed boiled cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L
Walp) and or black common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) meal diets. African Journal of
Biotechnology, 7(9): 1351–1356.
Ecocrop. 2009. Ecocrop database. FAO. Available at: http://ecocrop.fao.org/ecocrop/srv/en/home).
Eljack, B.H., Fadlalla, I.M.T. & Ibrahim, M.T. 2010. The effect of feeding cowpea (Vigna
unguiculata) on broiler chicks performance and some carcass quality measurements. Assiut
Veterinary Medical Journal, 56(124): 173–180.
Emiola, I.A. & Ologhobo, A.D. 2006. Nutritional assessment of raw and differently processed
underutilized legumes seed in broiler diet. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances,
5(2): 96–101. Available at: http://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=javaa.2006.96.101
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2012. Grassland species
index. Vigna unguiculata
Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Gbase/data/pf000090.htm
FAO. 2013. Grassland Index. A searchable catalogue of grass and forage legumes. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAOSTAT. 2013. FAO Statistics Division, Rome, Italy .
Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ/FAO.
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
Gomez, C. 2004. Cowpea: Post-Harvest Operations. In: Mejía (Ed.), Post-Harvest Compendium,
AGST, FAO.
Heinritz, S.N., Hoedtke, S., Martens, S.D., Peters, M. & Zeyner, A. 2012. Evaluation of ten
tropical legume forages for their potential as pig feed supplement. Livestock Research for Rural
Development, 24(1): Article #7. Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/1/hein24007.htm
Hlungwani, C. 2011. Evaluation of cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata L.) as a protein source for
chicken egg production. A dissertation submitted for M Tech to Department of Animal
Sciences, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, at Tshwane University of Technology.
Holzknecht, R.K., Poppi, D.P. & Hales, J.W. 2000. Meringa cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata cv.
Meringa) improve liveweight gain of cattle in late summer-early autumn in south-east
Queensland. Tropical Grasslands, 34(1): 38–42.
Available at: https://www.tropicalgrasslands.asn.au/Tropical%20Grasslands%20Journal%20
archive/PDFs/Vol_34_2000/Vol_34_01_00_pp38_42.pdf
Ikechukwu, J. 2000. Cowpea hulls as potential feedstuff for broilers. MSc Thesis, Animal
Nutrition and Biochemistry, University of Nigeria.
Karachi, M. & Lefofe, B.M. 2004. Variation in native cowpea for forage production in semi-arid
Botswana. Tropical Grasslands, 38(1): 56–61.
Koralagama, K.D, Mould, F.L., Fernandez-Rivera, S. & Hanson, J. 2008. The effect of
supplementing maize stover with cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) haulms on the intake and growth
performance of Ethiopian sheep. Animal, 2(6): 954–961. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731108001912
150 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Kur, A.T.Y., AbdelAtti, K.A., Dousa, B.M., Elagib, H.A.A., Malik, H.E.E. & Elamin, K.M.
2013. Effect of treated cowpea seeds on broiler chicken. Global Journal of Animal Scientific
Research, 1(1): 58–65.
Lon-Wo, E. & Cino, D.M. 2000. Synthetic amino acids on the efficiency of utilization of an
alternative protein source (Vigna unguiculata) for broilers. Cuban Journal of Agricultural
Science, 34(4): 327–333.
Madamba, R., Grubben, G.J.H., Asante, I.K. & Akromah, R. 2006. Vigna unguiculata (L.)
Walp. Record from Protabase. Brink, M. & Belay, G. (Editors). PROTA (Plant Resources of
Tropical Africa/Ressources végétales de l’Afrique tropicale), Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Makinde, M.O., Umapathy, E., Akingbemi, B.T. & Mandisodza, K.T. 1996. Effects of feeding
different levels of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) on gut morphology and faecal composition in
weanling pigs. South African Journal of Animal Science, 26(2): 42–46.
Available at: http://www.sasas.co.za/sites/sasas.co.za/files/makinde96issue2_0.pdf
Makinde, M.O., Umapathy, E., Akingbemi, B.T., Mandisodza, K.T. & Skadhauge, E.
1997. Differential response of legumes and creep feeding on gut morphology and faecal
composition in weanling pigs. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology,
118(2): 349–354.
Martens, S. & Heinritz, S. 2012. Silage quality of whole and crushed Vigna unguiculata beans
inoculated with lactic acid bacteria strains from sow milk. Pp. 438–439, in: K. Kuoppala,
M. Rinne and A. Vanhatalo (eds.), Proceedings of XVI International Silage Conference,
Hameenlinna, Finland, 2–4 July 2012,.
Mehdi, D., Ahmad, G., Baratali, S. & Mahmood, R. 2009. Effect of intercropping maize (Zea
mays L.) with cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) on green forage yield and quality evaluation.
Asian Journal of Plant Science, 8: 235–239. DOI: 10.3923/ajps.2009.235.239
Mullen, C. 1999. Summer legume forage crops: cowpeas, lablab, soybeans. Department of
Primary Industries of New South Wales
Available at: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/broadacre-cropsp/forage-fodder/crops2/
summer-legume-forage
Ningsanond, S., Khummenk, T., Vichiensanth, P. & Tungtrakul, C. 1992. Using the
by-product from de-hulling of cowpeas for defatted soybean meal substitution in growing
geese rations. Khon Kaen Agriculture Journal, 20: 97–106.
Olubunmi, P.A., Oyedele, O.J. & Odeyinka, S.M. 2005. Effect of feeding soybean milk
residue, cowpea seed waste and corn starch residue on the blood parameters, rectal
temperature and carcass quality of West African dwarf goats. Indian Journal of Animal
Science, 75(5): 534–538.
Paduano, D.C., Dixon, R.M., Domingo, J.A. & Holmes, J.H.G. 1995. Lupin (Lupinus
angustifolius), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and navy bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) seeds as
supplements for sheep fed low quality roughage. Animal Feed Science and Technology,
53(1): 55–69. DOI: 10.1016/0377-8401(94)00738-U
Rao, S.C. & Northup, B.K. 2009. Capabilities of four novel warm-season legumes in the
southern Great Plains: grain production and quality. Crop Science, 49(3): 1103–1108.
DOI : 10.2135/cropsci2008.08.0469
Ravhuhali, K.E., Ng’ambi, J.W., Norris, D. & Ayodele, V.I. 2011. The feeding value of four
cowpea hay cultivars and effect of their supplementation on intake and digestibility of buffalo
Cowpea 151

grass hay fed to Pedi goats. Asian Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 6(9): 909–922.
DOI: 10.3923/ajava.2011.909.922
Sarria, P., Montoya, C., Yusti, L.M., Orejuela, I., Guevara, M., Cruz, A.C., Arredondo, J.,
Londoño, A. & Peters, M. 2010. Nutritive value of leaf meal of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.
Walp.) for growing pigs. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 22(6): Article #110.
Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/6/sarr22110.htm
Sarwar, M., Sial, M.A., Abbas, W., Mahmood, S.& Bhatti, S.A. 1995. Ruminal digestion
kinetics of forages and feed by-products in Sahiwal calves. Indian Journal of Animal
Nutrition, 12(3): 141–145.
Savadogo, M., Zemmelink, G. & Nianogo, A.J. 2000. Effect of selective consumption on
voluntary intake and digestibility of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) stover, cowpea
(Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) and groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) haulms by sheep. Animal
Feed Science and Technology, 84(3–4): 265–277. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8401(00)00115-2
Savadogo, M., Zemmelink, G., Nianogo, A.J. & Keulen, H. van. 2000. Cowpea (Vigna
unguiculata L. Walp) and groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) haulms as supplements to
sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) stover: intake, digestibility and optimum feeding
levels. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 87(1–2): 57–69.
Singh, B.B., Ajeigbe, H.A., Tarawali, S.A., Fernandez-Rivera, S. & Abubakar, M. 2003.
Improving the production and utilization of cowpea as food and fodder. Field Crops Research,
84(1–2): 169–177. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-4290(03)00148-5
Singh, S., Kundu, S.S., Negi, A.S. & Singh, P.N. 2006. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) legume
grains as protein source in the ration of growing sheep. Small Ruminant Research, 64(3): 247–
254. DOI: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.04.022
Singh, S., Nag, S.K., Kundu, S.S. & Maity, S.B. 2010. Relative intake, eating pattern, nutrient
digestibility, nitrogen metabolism, fermentation pattern and growth performance of lambs fed
organically and inorganically produced cowpea hay-barley grain diets. Tropical Grasslands,
44(1): 55–61.
Solaiman, S. 2007. Feeding value of seed-harvested cowpea vines for goats. Notes on Goats,
Tuskegee University, Technical Paper No. 07–09.
TJAI (Thomas Jefferson Agricultural Institute). 2010. Cowpea: a versatile legume for hot, dry
conditions. Columbia, MO.
Available at: https://www.extension.iastate.edu/alternativeag/cropproduction/pdf/cowpea_
crop_guide.pdf
Trompiz, J., Ventura, M., Esparza, D., Alvarado, E., Betancourt, E. & Padron-Morales,
S. 2002. Evaluation of partial substitution of feed concentrate for bean grain meal (Vigna
unguiculata) in broiler feeding. Revista Cientifica, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias,
Universidad del Zulia, 12 (Supplemento 2): 478–480.
Umunna, N.N., Osuji, P.O. & Nsahlai, I.V. 1997. Strategic supplementation of crossbred steers
fed forages from cereal-legume cropping systems with cowpea hay. Journal of Applied Animal
Research, 11(2): 169–182.
Van Rij, N. 1999. Production of cowpeas in Kwazulu-Natal. Agric. Env. Affairs Dpt, Province
of Kwazulu-Natal, South-Africa.
Varvikko, T., Khalili, H. & Crosse, S. 1992. Supplementation of native grass hay with cowpea
(Vigna unguiculata) hay, wilted leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala) forage, wilted tagasaste
152 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

(Chamaecytisus palmensis) forage or a wheat middling for young Friesian × Zebu (Boran)
crossbred steers. Agricultural Science in Finland, 1(2): 247–254.
Vendramini, J.M.B., Arthington, J.D. & Adesogan, A.T. 2012. Effects of incorporating cowpea
in a subtropical grass pasture on forage production and quality and the performance of cows
and calves. Grass and Forage Science, 67(1): 129–135. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2494.2011.00828.x
 153

Chapter 9
Pigeon pea
COMMON NAMES
Cajan pea, no-eye pea, no-eyed pea, tropical green pea (English); pois d’Angole,
pois cajan, pois-congo, ambrevade (French); guandú, gandul, guandul, frijol
de palo, quinchoncho (Spanish); guandu, andu, anduzeiro, guandeiro, feijão
boer (Portuguese); Straucherbse (German); pwa kongo (Haitian creole); gude,
kacang gude (Indonesian); caiano (Italian); umukunde (Kinyarwanda).

DISTRIBUTION
The origin of pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Huth] has been the matter of
some debate; some authors indicate that the species originated from north-
eastern Africa and others assure that it is native to India. However, pigeon
pea has most probably originated from India where the closest wild relative
[Cajanus cajanifolius (Haines) Maesen] is also found (Fuller and Harvey, 2006;
Ecocrop, 2016). In any case, its cultivation dates back at least 3 000 years
(Mallikarjuna, Saxena and Jadhav, 2011). It is now a pan-tropical and sub-
tropical species, particularly suited for rainfed agriculture in semi-arid areas.
It can be found in both hemispheres from 30 °N to 30 °S and from sea level to
an altitude of 2 000 masl (Ecocrop, 2016).

DESCRIPTION
Pigeon pea is an erect, short-lived perennial leguminous, warm-season crop. It
is a shrub generally about 1–2 m in height, but can go up to 2–5 m high. Pigeon
pea quickly develops a deep (2 m depth) poisonous taproot. The stems are
woody at the base, angular, branching. The leaves are alternate, trifoliate. The
leaflets are oblong, lanceolate,
5–10 cm long × 2–4 cm wide.
Leaves and stems are pubescent.
The flowers (5 to 10) are
grouped in racemes at the apices
or axils of the branches. The
flowers are papillonaceous and
generally yellow in colour. They
can also be striated with purple
© CIAT/Daniel Debouck

streaks. The corolla is about

2–2.5 cm. The pigeon pea fruit
is a flat, straight, pubescent,
5–9 cm long x 12–13 mm wide
pod. It contains 2–9 seeds. The
pigeon pea seeds are brown, red Photo 9.1.1 Seeds of pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Huth]
154 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

or black in colour, small and sometimes hard coated (Bekele-Tessema, 2007;

FAO, 2016a).

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR CULTIVATION

Pigeon pea is adapted to a wide range of soil types. It grows best in well-
drained soils and does not survive waterlogged conditions. It does better where
annual rainfall is more than 625 mm but it is highly tolerant of dry periods
and, in places where the soil is deep and well-structured, pigeon pea still grows
with as low as 250 to 375 mm rainfall. It can be grown in a pH range of 4.5–8.4
(Cook et al., 2005). It grows better in places where temperatures range from 20
to 40 °C (FAO, 2016a). Pigeon pea is drought resistant and can survive under
very dry conditions because of its deep root system. It has been found to grow
throughout a six month dry season (Cook et al., 2005); however, flowering
is delayed and seed yield decreases with long periods of drought (Mullen,
Holland and Heuke, 2003). It is less adapted to humid, wet conditions.

PRODUCTION OF PIGEON PEA SEEDS

Global production of pigeon pea seeds was 4.85 million tonne in 2014. Most
important producers of pigeon pea seeds were India (65 percent of world
production), Myanmar, Malawi, Kenya and Tanzania. Asia accounted for the
bulk of production with 79.1 percent, followed by Africa (17.6 percent) and
the Americas (2.5 percent) (FAO, 2016b).

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Pigeon pea seeds contain various anti-nutritional factors including
haemagglutinins, trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors, cyanoglucosides,
alkaloids and tannins (Onwuka, 2006). These anti-nutritional factors can
have deleterious effects on animals. Cheva-Isarakul (1992) reported that the
trypsin inhibitor activity (TIA) in pigeon pea seeds was 3 times that found
in the leaves (19.5 vs 7.0 mg TIA/g DM). Feeding of pigeon pea produced
worse effects on pig performance and feed use efficiency compared with pigs
fed chickpeas. This suggests the presence of other anti-nutritional factors in
pigeon pea (Batterham et al., 1990). However, heat treatments such as cooking
or extrusion reduced the amount of trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors and
increased pigeon pea digestibility (Batterham et al., 1990; Batterham et al.,
1993; Onwuka, 2006).

PIGEON PEA AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

Cattle
Pigeon pea seeds. Pigeon pea seeds and its by-products such as split and
shrivelled seeds are used as livestock feed (Phatak et al., 1993). Pigeon pea
is typically used as a protein source, due to its high concentration of protein
in both seeds (23.0 percent, DM basis) and leaves (19.0 percent, DM basis;
Table 9.1). However, a high proportion of protein is bound to fibre (20–26
Pigeon pea 155

Table 9.1 Chemical composition of pigeon pea and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Aerial part, Hay Leaves, dry Pods Pod husk
Parameter Seeds
fresh

Crude protein 23.2 10.1–26.7 14.5 19.3 20.3 6.7

Ether extract 2.5 2.4–6.1 1.9 5.5 1.7 0.3
Crude fibre 9.1 21.3–45.1 32.5 24.1 35.2 38.0
NDF 15.5 37.2–62.9 78.6
ADF 10.5 15.7–38.7 60.2
Ash 5.3 4.0–8.8 4.6 8.8 3.3 5.0
Lignin 7.3–21.4 17.1
Calcium 0.38 0.46–1.08 1.24 0.97
Phosphorus 0.32 0.10–0.26 0.25 0.18

Notes: DM (as fed) is 89.5 percent for seeds, 24.4–49.7 percent for fresh aerial part, 90.3 percent for hay, 90.0 percent for
dry leaves, 87.3 percent for pod, and 93.0 percent for pod husk.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).

percent N fixed in ADF; Pires et al., 2006; Veloso et al., 2006; Foster et al.,
2011), suggesting not all protein being available for digestion. Nutritive value
of pigeon pea may also be limited by low sulphur concentration (0.06 percent,
DM basis) that is below ruminant requirements.
Corriher et al. (2007) observed that total replacement of whole cotton
seeds, maize gluten feed or maize+soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] meal
by pigeon pea seeds had no effect on the average daily gain of yearling beef
heifers fed on a maize silage-based diet. Corriher et al. (2010) also observed
that pigeon pea seeds can be incorporated at a rate of 20 percent (DM basis)
in a maize silage-based diet without any detrimental effect on DMI (22.5 kg
DM/day) and milk production (42 kg/day) in early lactation Holstein cows.

Pigeon pea forage. Pigeon pea is a good protein source and provides excellent
forage for livestock (Phatak et al., 1993). Pigeon pea foliage (leaves and pods)
is valuable and palatable fodder. The foliage and young pods are palatable
to livestock and provide good quality forage. Pigeon pea can be grown in
association with cereals such as maize, sorghum or millet (Cook et al., 2005;
Bekele-Tessema, 2007). However, it is not recommended for growing in
associations with other legumes for fodder production (Cook et al., 2005). Rao
and Northup (2012) reported an average daily weight gain of about 1.0 kg/day
on yearling cattle, intensively grazing pigeon pea forage in late-summer.
Generally, the yields of pigeon pea forage range from 20 to 40 tonne
DM/ha. Pigeon pea ranks alongside the highest biomass producers, such as
switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) (Sloan et al., 2009), and could be expected
to yield up to 40 tonne DM/ha under optimal conditions (ILRI, 2013).

Pigeon pea hay. da Silva et al. (2009) observed that DM or OM digestibility

of pigeon pea hay ranges from 50 to 60 percent. Foster et al. (2009a) also
observed that in vivo DM or OM digestibility of pigeon pea hay was found to
156 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

be close to that of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] hay (55–56 percent).
However, Foster et al. (2009b) observed that pigeon pea haylage seems clearly
less digestible than the other warm-season legumes, such as groundnut
(Arachis hypogaea L.) and cowpea. Pigeon pea, as fresh, hay or haylage,
including the leaves, is characterized by low in situ ruminal DM, NDF and N
disappearance kinetics when compared with other warm-season legumes or
poor quality forage hays, with much lower potentially degradable fractions
and much greater undegradable fractions (Carvalho et al., 2006; Pires et al.,
2006; Veloso et al., 2006; Foster et al., 2011). This clearly limits its potential
use for high producing animals such as dairy cows.

Sheep and goats

Pigeon pea seeds. On a rice-straw-based diet containing 50 percent of
concentrate, total and isonitrogenous replacement of ingredients (maize, bran,
meals) by ground pigeon pea seeds had no effect on DMI, in vivo DMD and
average daily gain (Cheva-Isarakul, 1992). Dry matter intake levels ranged
from 2.9 to 3.6 percent BW at an incorporation rate of pigeon pea seeds
of from 17 to 57 percent in a rice-straw-based diet (Cheva-Isarakul, 1992).
This suggests that pigeon pea seeds can be used to replace soybean meal in
concentrate rations for ruminants or directly supplemented to low quality
roughages. Raw or processed pigeon pea seed meal included up to 30 percent
in diets of West African Dwarf goats improved feed intake (Ahamefule,
Ibeawuchi and Ibe, 2006).

Pigeon pea forage. Omokanye et al. (2001) observed that chopping of pigen
pea enhanced intake by around 60 percent in sheep. As the study period
progressed, the consumption of fresh and chopped materials remained
moderately consistent, while those of dried and unchopped materials in turn
increased gradually. Voluntary DMI of sheep can be 2.5 percent of BW (58
g/kg BW0.75) on a pigeon pea-leaf-based diet (Cheva-Isarakul, 1992) and 3.5
percent of BW (65 g/kg BW0.75) on a pigeon pea-hay-based diet (da Silva et
al., 2009). When incorporated at a rate of 50 percent of DM in a bahia grass
(Paspalum notatum Flüggé) hay- or haylage-based diet, pigeon pea, as hay or
haylage, had a clear detrimental effect on DMI when compared with other
warm-season legumes, such as groundnut or cowpea (Foster et al., 2009a;
Foster et al., 2009b).

Pigs
Pigeon pea seeds. Mekbungwan, Thongwittaya and Yamauchi (2004) reported
that the digestibilities of crude protein (49.8 percent), crude fat (23.6 percent),
and crude fibre (43.2 percent) in pigeon pea were much lower than those of
soybean (80.6, 23.6 and 52.4 percent, respectively). The digestible energy of
pigeon pea seeds was also lower than that of soybean meal and only half the
protein could be digested. Raw pigeon pea seeds can be added up to 20 percent
Pigeon pea 157

in the diets of growing pigs (Mekbungwan et al., 1999); while Mekbungwan

and Yamauchi (2004) recommended that raw pigeon pea seeds could be
incorporated up to 40 percent in a growing (13 kg) pig diet.
Addition of pigeon pea seeds to the diet linearly depressed growth rate,
feed intake (P <0.05) and feed use efficiency of growing pigs (20 kg) when
included at levels varying from 25 to 75 percent. Mean growth responses and
feed use efficiency of pigs fed on pigeon pea were inferior to those of pigs fed
on soybean or chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) (Batterham et al., 1990). Piglets
fed on pigeon pea seeds had lower weight gain and lower feed intake, and feed
cost was higher with pigeon pea than with the control (Etuk et al., 2005). Fuji
et al. (1995) reported that feeding pigeon pea at 6–12 percent in concentrate
diet (DM basis) increased meat mass, and had no signs of illness in growing
pigs (20–60 kg). Amaefule et al. (2016) reported that growing pigs could be fed
up to 30 percent raw pigeon pea seeds in the diet to ensure better performance
and reduce total feed cost and feed cost per kg live weight gain, improving the
gross margin.

Pigeon pea forage. Pigeon pea forage could be fed at up to 24 percent to

creola pigs without health problems. However, pigs had increased ileal and
rectal flow of both DM and water, which indicates lower digestibility of diets
containing pigeon pea forage (Diaz and Ly, 2007). Growth performances were
decreased at levels as low as 6 percent in creole pigs diets, back thickness
increased as pigeon pea forage increased, and economic performance decreased
with increasing pigeon pea forage (Estupiñán, 2013; Estupiñán et al., 2013).

Poultry
Broilers. Hassan, Yassin and Gibril (2013) observed that broilers can perform
well up to a 12 percent incorporation rate of pigeon pea seeds as a substitute
for sesame cake. However, incorporation rates above 20 percent decreased
performance (Etuk and Udedibie, 2003; Amaefule, Ukpanah and Ibok, 2011;
Ani and Okeke, 2011). In some cases, feed intake, and weight gain decreased at
low incorporation rates of from 5 to 10 percent (Babiker, Khadiga and Elawad,
2006; Saeed, Khadiga and Abdel, 2007; Oso et al., 2012). The effect seems to
be higher in starters than in finisher broilers (Ani and Okeke, 2011; Igene et
al., 2012). In some cases, growth performances were maintained with 10 to 20
percent raw pigeon pea (de Oliveira et al., 2000; Iorgyer et al., 2009).
Many groups tried to improve performance with technical treatments
such as thermal treatments (roasting or cooking), soaking, fermentation or
dehulling (Onu and Okongwu, 2006; Abdelati, Mohammed and Ahmed,
2009). In most cases the growth performance of broilers is improved, with no
clear advantage to one particular processing except that fermented pigeon pea
did not produce good animal performance (Oso et al., 2012). Optimization of
thermal treatments showed that over-processing (autoclaving at 120 °C for 30
min.) led to decreased performance (Pezzato et al., 1995). Toasted pigeon pea
158 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

could support growth up to 27 percent in finisher diets, while performance was

reduced (although non-significantly) in younger birds (Ani and Okeke, 2011).
In summary, the general recommendation in broilers would be to limit
incorporation to 10 percent raw pigeon pea in young animals. With processed
(toasted) pigeon pea and in older animals, higher incorporation rates, up to 20
percent, could be used.

Layers. The supplementation of raw pigeon pea at a 30 percent level in layer

diets reduced hen-day egg production (Agwunobi, 2000; Amaefule et al.,
2007) although in some experiments production was maintained with 20
percent pigeon pea in the diet. Treatments such as toasting or boiling can
improve performance (Amaefule, Ironkwe and Obioha, 2006; Amaefule et al.,
2007). Pigeon pea can be used in diets of pullets (Amaefule and Nwagbara,
2004; Amaefule, Ojewola and Ironkwe, 2006). The overall recommendation
is to use pigeon pea in layers diet with care, to avoid a decrease in feed use
efficiency. It should be safe to use 10 percent raw pigeon pea in diets, with
special attention to methionine content in the diet. Higher rates (20 percent)
can be tested, especially if a technical treatment (toasting or boiling) can be
applied to pigeon pea.

SUMMARY
Pigeon pea seeds and its by-products are used as livestock feed. Pigeon pea
seeds are good source of protein and can be incorporated up to 20 percent
(DM basis) in the diet of lactating cows. Raw or processed seeds can be
included up to 30 percent in goat diets. Pigeon pea provides excellent forage
for livestock. Raw pigeon pea seeds can be included up to 20 percent in
growing pig diets. Raw pigeon pea seeds can be included up to 10 percent,
whereas processed (toasted) seeds can be included up to 20 percent in broiler
and layer diets.

REFERENCES cited in chapter 9

Abdelati, K.A., Mohammed, H.A.R. & Ahmed, M.E. 2009. Influence of feeding processed
pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) seeds on broiler chick performance. International Journal of
Poultry Science, 8(10): 971–975. DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2009.971.975
Agwunobi, L.N. 2000. Effect of feeding heat treated soybean (Glycine max) and pigeon pea
(Cajanus cajan) as major sources of protein on layer performance. Global Journal of Pure and
Applied Sciences, 6(1): 1–3.
Ahamefule, F.O., Ibeawuchi, J.A. & Ibe, S.N. 2006. Nutrient intake and utilization of pigeon
pea-cassava based diets by West African Dwarf (WAD) bucks, Pakistan Journal of Nutrition,
5(5): 419–424. DOI: 10.3923/pjn.2006.419.424
Amaefule, K.U. & Nwagbara, N.N. 2004. The effect of processing on nutrient utilization
of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) seed meal and pigeon pea seed meal based diets by pullets.
International Journal of Poultry Science, 3(8): 543–546. DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2004.543.546
Pigeon pea 159

Amaefule, K.U., Ibe, S.N., Herbert, U. & Ugwuene, M.C. 2016. Performance of growing pigs
fed raw pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) seed meal diets in the humid Tropics. Journal
of Advanced Agricultural Technologies, 3(2): 99–103.
Available at: http://www.joaat.com/uploadfile/2016/0628/20160628032916654.pdf
Amaefule, K.U., Ironkwe, M.C. & Obioha, F.C. 2006. Pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan (L.)
Millsp.] seed meal in layer diets: 1. Performance of point of lay pullets fed raw or
processed pigeon pea seed meal diets. International Journal of Poultry Science, 5(7): 639–645.
DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2006.639.645
Amaefule, K.U., Oguike, M.A., Ironkwe, M.O. & Obioha, F.C. 2007. Pigeon pea [Cajanus
cajan (L.) Millsp.] seed meal in layer diets: 3. Effect of higher inclusion level and prolonged
feeding of raw or processed pigeon pea seed meal diets from pullet chick stage on
the laying performance of pullets. International Journal of Poultry Science, 6(6): 452–458.
DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2007.452.458
Amaefule, K.U., Ojewola, G.S. & Ironkwe, M.C. 2006. Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) seed meal
as protein source for pullets: 2. Response of pullets to higher inclusion level and prolonged
feeding of raw or processed pigeon pea seed meal diets. International Journal of Poultry
Science, 5(3): 289–295. DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2006.289.295
Amaefule, K.U., Ukpanah, U.A. & Ibok, A.E. 2011. Performance of starter broilers
fed raw pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] seed meal diets supplemented with
lysine and or methionine. International Journal of Poultry Science, 10(3): 205–211.
DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2011.205.211
Ani, A.O. & Okeke, G.C. 2011. The performance of broiler birds fed varying levels of roasted
pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) seed meal. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 10(11): 1036–1040.
Available at: http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/ansinet/pjn/2011/1036-1040.pdf
Babiker, H.A., Khadiga, A.A.A. & Elawad, S.M. 2006. Effect of feeding different levels of
soaked pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) seeds on broiler chickens performance and profitability.
Research Journal in Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 1(1): 1–4.
Available at: http://www.aensiweb.net/AENSIWEB/rjavs/rjavs/2006/1-4.pdf
Batterham, E.S., Andersen, L.M., Saini, H.S. & Baigent, D.R. 1990. Tolerance of growing
pigs to trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors in chickpea (Cicer arietinum) and pigeon pea
(Cajanus cajan) meals. Proceedings of Australian Society of Animal Production, 18: 453
(Abstr.).
Batterham, E.S., Saini, H.S., Andersen, L.M. & Baigent, R.D. 1993. Tolerance of growing
pigs to trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors in chickpeas (Cicer arietinum) and pigeonpeas
(Cajanus cajan). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 61(2): 211–216.
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2740610212
Bekele-Tessema, A. 2007. Profitable agroforestry innovations for eastern Africa: experience from
10 agroclimatic zones of Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. World Agroforestry
Centre (ICRAF), Eastern Africa Region.
Carvalho, G.G.P., Pires, A.J.V., Veloso, C.M., Detmann, E., Silva, F.F. & Silva, R.R. 2006.
Ruminal degradability of some roughage hays for ruminants feeding. Brazilian Journal of
Veterinary and Animal Science, 58(4): 575–580.
Cheva-Isarakul, B. 1992. Pigeon pea as a ruminant feed. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal
Sciences, 5(3): 549–558. Available at: http://ajas.info/upload/pdf/5-79.pdf
160 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Cook, B.G., Pengelly, B.C., Brown, S.D., Donnelly, J.L., Eagles, D.A., Franco, M.A., Hanson,
J., Mullen, B.F., Partridge, I.J., Peters, M. & Schultze-Kraft, R. 2005. Tropical forages:
An interactive selection tool. CSIRO, DPI&F(Qld), CIAT and ILRI, Brisbane, Australia.
Available at: http://www.tropicalforages.info/
Corriher, V.A., Hill, G.M., Bernard, J.K., Jenkins, T.C., West, J.W. & Mullinix, B.G.Jr. 2010.
Pigeon peas as supplement for lactating dairy cows fed corn silage-based diets. Journal of
Dairy Science., 93(11): 5309–5317. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2010-3182
Corriher, V.A., Hill, G.M., Phatak, S.C. & Mullinix, B.G.Jr. 2007. Performance of beef heifers
and digestibility of steers fed whole cotton seed, corn gluten feed and pigeon peas. Journal of
Animal Science, 85: 617 (Abstr.).
da Silva, R.L.N.V., de Araújo, G.G.L., do Socorro, E.P., Oliveira, R.L., Neto, A.F.G. &
Bagaldo, A.R. 2009. Levels of forage watermelon meal in diets for sheep. Brazilian Journal of
Animal Science, 38(6): 1142–1148.
de Oliveira, P.B., Murakami, A.E., de Moraes Garcia, E.R., Macari, M.& Scapinello, C.
2000. Influence of anti-nutritional factors of leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala and Leucaena
cunningan) and pigeon bean (Cajanus cajan) on the intestinal epithelium and performance of
broiler chickens. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science, 29(6): 1759–1769.
Diaz, C. & Ly, J. 2007. Ileal and rectal digesta flow in pigs fed diets based on sugar cane molasses
and Cajanus cajan foliage. Rev. Unellez de Ciencia y Tecnología, Producción Agrícola, 25: 24–31.
Ecocrop. 2016. Ecocrop database. FAO, Rome, Italy
Available at: http://ecocrop.fao.org/ecocrop/srv/en/home
Estupiñán, K. 2013. Studies on the economy of fattening equatorian creole pigs with pigeon pea
foliage meal. Rev. Computadorizada de Producción Porcina, 20(3): 156–159.
Estupiñán, K., Fraga, L., Diéguez, F., Lucas, J., Cansing, J. & Ly, J. 2013. Pigeon pea (Cajanus
cajan (L.) Millsp.) forage in diets for growing and finishing Equatorian creole pigs. Rev.
Computadorizada de Producción Porcina, 20(2): 99–103.
Etuk, E.B. & Udedibie, A.B.I. 2003. Effect of cooked pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) seed meal on
the performance of broiler chicks. Journal of Agriculture and Social Research, 3(1): 1–12.
Etuk, E.B., Opara, C.P., Uchegbu, M.C., Emenalom, O.O. & Esonu, B.O. 2005. Evaluation of
raw and cooked pigeon pea seed meal as feed ingredient for weaner pigs. Bulletin of Animal
Health and Production in Africa, 53(2): 125–129.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2016a. Grassland Index. A
searchable catalogue of grass and forage legumes. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2016b. FAOSTAT. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ/FAO.
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
Foster, J.L., Adesogan, A.T., Carter, J.N., Blount, A.R., Myer, R.O. & Phatak, S.C. 2009a.
Intake, digestibility, and nitrogen retention by sheep supplemented with warm-season legume
hays or soybean meal. Journal of Animal Science, 87(9): 2891–2898.
DOI: 10.2527/jas.2008-1637
Foster, J.L., Adesogan, A.T., Carter, J.N., Blount, A.R., Myer, R.O. & Phatak, S.C. 2009b.
Intake, digestibility, and nitrogen retention by sheep supplemented with warm-season legume
haylages or soyean meal. Journal of Animal Science, 87(9): 2899–2905.
DOI: 10.2527/jas.2009-1828
Pigeon pea 161

Foster, J.L., Carter, J.N., Sollenberger, L.E., Blount, A.R., Myer, R.O., Maddox, M.K.,
Phatak, S.C. & Adesogan, A.T. 2011. Nutritive value, fermentation characteristics, and in
situ disappearance kinetics of ensiled warm-season legumes and bahiagrass. Journal of Dairy
Science, 94(4): 2042–2050. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2010-3800
Fuji, L., Zhenghong, L., Jie, Y. & Kunxian, C. 1995. Study on feeding pig with pigeon pea seed.
Fodder Industry, 16(7): 29–31.
Fuller, D.Q. & Harvey, E.L. 2006. The archaeobotany of Indian pulses: identification, processing
and evidence for cultivation. Environmental Archaeology, 11(2): 219–246.
Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/people/staff/fuller/usercontent_profile/
ENV_Art5Fuller.pdf
Hassan, A.A., Yassin, O.E. & Gibril, S. 2013. Effect of feeding graded levels of decorticated
pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) seeds on broiler chicks performance. Journal of Applied and
Industrial Sciences, 1(4): 7–10.
Igene, F.U., Isika, M.A., Oboh, S.O. & Ekundayo, D.A. 2012. Replacement value of boiled
pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) on growth performance, carcass and haematological responses
of broiler chickens. Asian Journal of Poultry Science, 6(1): 1–9. DOI: 10.3923/ajpsaj.2012.1.9
ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). 2013. Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) for
livestock feed on small-scale farms. ILRI Forage Factsheet.
Iorgyer, M.I., Odoh, O.E., Ikondo, N.D. & Okoh, J.J. 2009. The replacement value of pigeon
pea (Cajanus cajan) for maize on performance of broiler finishers. Production Agriculture and
Technology Journal (Nigeria), 5(1): 67–74. Available at: http://patnsukjournal.net/vol5no1/p8.pdf
Mallikarjuna, N., Saxena, K.B. & Jadhav, D.R. 2011. Cajanus. In: K. Chittaranjan (Ed). Wild
crop relatives: genomic and breeding resources - legume crops and forages. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, Heidelberg.
Mekbungwan, A. & Yamauchi, K. 2004. Growth performance and histological intestinal
alterations in piglets fed dietary raw and heated pigeon pea seed meal. Histology and
Histopathology, 19: 381–389.
Mekbungwan, A., Thongwittaya, N. & Yamauchi, K. 2004. Digestibility of soybean and
pigeon pea seed meals and morphological intestinal alterations in pigs. Journal of Veterinary
Medical Science, 66(6): 627–633. DOI: 10.1292/jvms.66.627
Mekbungwan, A., Yothinsirikul, W., Thongwittaya, N. & Yamauchi, K. 1999. Effect of pigeon
pea (Cajanus cajan) seed meal on growth performance in piglets and growing pigs. Animal
Science Journal, 70: 201–206.
Mullen, C.L., Holland, J.F. & Heuke, L. 2003. Cowpea, lablab and pigeon pea PAGFACTS.
New South Wales Agriculture.
Omokanye, A.T., Balogun, R.O., Onifade, O.S., Afolayan, O.R. & Olayemi, M.E. 2001.
Assessment of preference and intake of browse species by Yankasa sheep at Shika, Nigeria.
Small Ruminant Research, 42(3): 201–208. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-4488(01)00250-4
Onu, P.N. & Okongwu, S.N. 2006. Performance characteristics and nutrient utilization of
starter broilers fed raw and processed pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) seed meal. International
Journal of Poultry Science, 5(7): 693–697. DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2006.693.697
Onwuka, G.I. 2006. Soaking, boiling and anti-nutritional factors in pigeon peas (Cajanus cajan)
and cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata). Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 30(5): 616–630.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-4549.2006.00092.x
162 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Oso, A.O., Idowu, O.M.O., Jegede, A.V., Olayemi, W.A., Lala, O.A. & Bamgbose, A.M. 2012.
Effect of dietary inclusion of fermented pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) meal on growth, apparent
nutrient digestibility and blood parameters of cockerel chicks. Tropical Animal Health and
Production, 44(7): 1581–1586. DOI: 10.1007/s11250-012-0109-1
Pezzato, A.C., Silveira, A.C., Furlan, L.R., Pezzato, L.E. & Costa, C. 1995. Study on the
nutrition value of pigeon pea meal [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millps] in broiler feed. 1. Evaluation of
thermal treatment. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, 30(5): 569–576.
Available at : http://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/view/4341
Phatak, S.C., Nadimpalli, R.G., Tiwari, S.C. & Bhardwaj, H.L.1993. Pigeonpeas: Potential
new crop for the southeastern United States. Pp. 597–599, in: J. Janick and J E. Simon (eds.).
New crops. Wiley, New York.
Pires, A.J.V., Reis, R.A., Carvalho, G.G.P., Siqueira, G.R., Bernardes, T.F., Ruggieri, A.C.,
Almeida, E.O. & Roth, M.T.P. 2006. Forages dry matter, fibrous fraction and crude protein
ruminal degradability. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, 41(4): 643–648.
Rao, S.C. & Northup, B.K. 2012. Pigeon pea potential for summer grazing in the southern great
plains. Agronomy Journal, 104(1): 199–203.
Saeed, M.S., Khadiga, A. & Abdel, A. 2007. Inclusion of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) seed on
broiler chick’s diet. Research Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 2(1–4): 1–4.
Available at: http://www.aensiweb.net/AENSIWEB/rjavs/rjavs/2007/1-4.pdf
Sloan, J., Heiholt, J., Iyer, H., Metz, S., Phatak, S., Rao, S. & Ware, D. 2009. Pigeon pea: a
multipurpose, drought resistant forage, grain and vegetable crop for sustainable southern
farms. 2009 Annual Report, SARE Research and Education Project.
Veloso, C.M., Rodriguez, N.M., de Carvalho, G.G.P., Pires, A.J. V., Mourão, G.B., Gonçalves,
L.C. & Sampaio, I.B.M. 2006. Ruminal degradabilities of dry matter and crude protein of
tropical forages. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science, 35(2): 613–617.
 163

Chapter 10
Lentil
COMMON NAMES
Lentil, red dahl (English); lenteja (Spanish); lentilha (Portuguese); lentille
(French); Linse, Erve (German); lenticchia (Italian); mdengu (Swahili); Linze
(Dutch); Mercimek (Turkish).

DISTRIBUTION
Lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) may have been one of the first agricultural
crops grown, more than 8 500 years ago. The plant was given the scientific
name Lens culinaris in 1787 by Medikus, a German botanist and physician
(Hanelt, 2001). Lentils were domesticated in the so-called Fertile Crescent
(within the boundaries of what is Iraq today) and from there spread to other
regions (Ron, 2015). The genus Lens includes both cultivated and wild forms
distributed in West Asia and North Africa. However, wild forms are confined
to the Mediterranean region (Dikshit et al., 2015).

DESCRIPTION
Lentil is a bushy, annual legume, and grown mainly for its edible seeds, which
are cooked and eaten (Ford et al., 2007). The plant can reach 60–75 cm high. The
lentil plant is slender and erect or sub-erect and has branching, hairy stems. The
leaves of the plant are arranged alternately and are made up of 4–7 individual oval
leaflets. The plant produces small blue, purple, white or pink flowers arranged
on racemes with 1–4 flowers. The fruits are small, laterally compressed pods
that contain two or three lens-shaped, grey, green, brownish, pale red or black
seeds, the size of which depend on cultivar type and ranges from 2 to 9 mm ×
2 to 3 mm (Ecocrop, 2012). The most recent classification identified seven taxa
groups under four species, namely Lens culinaris subsp. culinaris, L. culinaris
subsp. orientalis (Boiss.) Ponert,
L. culinaris subsp. tomentosus
(Ladiz.) M.E. Ferguson et al.,
L. culinaris subsp. odemensis
(Ladiz.) M.E. Ferguson et al.,
L. ervoides (Brign.) Grande, L.
lamottei Czefr., and L. nigricans
© FAO/Teodardo Calles

(M. Bieb.) Godr. (Ferguson et

al., 2000; Kole et al., 2011).

PRODUCTION OF SEEDS
Lentils rank fifth among the
most important pulses in the Photo 10.1.1 Seeds of lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.)
 164 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

world and are extremely

important in the diets of many
people in the Middle East and
India (FAOSTAT, 2012). The
major lentil growing countries
© ICARDA/Athanasios Tsivelikas

of the world are Canada, India,

Turkey, Australia, United States
of America, Nepal, China,
and Ethiopia. Out of the total
increased volume of global
production in recent years, most
is coming mainly from Canada
Photo 10.1.2 Plants of lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) and India (FAOSTAT, 2014).
The total lentil cultivated area
in the world is estimated around 4.34 million hectare with annual production
of 4.95 million tonne (FAOSTAT, 2014). Most of the production (56 percent)
is consumed locally and rest (44 percent) is supplied to the global market
(Kumar et al., 2013).

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR CULTIVATION

Lentils are adapted for cultivation in cool climates and are tolerant of some
light frost. It can grow on a wide variety of soils, ranging from sandy to clay
loams, but grows optimally in a sandy, well-draining soil with a pH of 4.5
to 8.2. A soil pH of close to 7 is ideal. Lentils grow under a wide range of
temperatures (6–27 °C); an optimum temperature for growth being 24 °C.
Lentils do well in places with annual rainfall below 750 mm and a marked
dry period before harvest. Lentils are generally rainfed but do well under
irrigation. Though it can stand a wide rainfall distribution (300 to 2400 mm),
lentils cannot bear waterlogging and should be sown at the end of the rainy
season in warmer areas, where they can grow on residual moisture (Bejiga,
2006; Ford et al., 2007).

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Lentil seeds contain anti-nutritional factors such as protease inhibitors, lectins,
phytic acid, saponins and tannins, though in moderate amounts (Blair, 2007).
Heat treatment of seeds helps in reducing these anti-nutritional factors (Castell
and Cliplef, 1990). Microwave cooking also helps in improving nutritional
quality, and reducing anti-nutritional factors (Hefnawy, 2011).

LENTIL SEEDS AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED

Cattle
Lentil seeds. Lentil seeds are a good source of protein (27 percent, DM basis)
and starch (48 percent, DM basis) and thus considered as a nutrient-dense and
versatile feed (Table 10.1). However, lentils are low in sulphur amino acids and
Lentil 165

Table 10.1 Chemical composition of lentil and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Parameter Seeds Screening Bran Pod husk Straw

Crude protein 24.6–30.0 22.7–25.9 15.0–26.4 12.6 5.8–8.6

Ether extract 0.5–5.0 1.7–2.6 0.6–1.4 0.8 0.8–2.2
Crude fibre 2.9–7.7 5.3–19.4 8.4–32.2 29.0 29.9–41.8
NDF 8.1–27.4 20.9 48.6–53.0 42.8–71.0
ADF 3.3–6.3 10.9 35.9–48.6 27.1–51.3
Ash 2.7–6.8 3.8–10.7 2.8–9.8 3.5 6.0–11.2
Lignin 1.2–2.0 7.4 5.9–13.3
Calcium 0.06–0.23 0.20 0.51–0.82 1.50–3.01
Phosphorus 0.31–0.66 0.47 0.22–0.56 0.11–0.19
Notes: DM (as fed) is 87.1–91.0 percent for seeds, 87.9–90.4 percent for screenings, 87.6–91.1 percent for bran, 88.0 percent
for pod husk, and 90.4–93.8 percent for straw.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).

tryptophan (Wang and Daun, 2006) and should therefore be supplemented

with other protein sources when they are intended for feeding to monogastrics
(Castell and Cliplef, 1990).
Lardy and Anderson (2009) suggested that lentil seeds are very palatable and
the growth rate of the calves fed lentil containing diet was equal to those fed
diets containing field pea (Pisum sativum L.) or chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) .
Organic matter digestibility and DMI were similar in beef cattle receiving diets
containing either lentils, chickpeas or field peas, replacing maize and canola
(Brassica napus L.) as the grain component in the diet (Gilbery et al., 2007).

Lentil screenings. Lentil screenings are the by-product of cleaning lentil seeds.
They may consist of whole and broken lentils, cereal grains, weed seeds,
chaff and dust (Stanford et al., 1999). Stanford et al. (1999) found that lentil
screenings have a poor OM digestibility (55 percent) despite a fairly low
NDF content (29 percent, DM basis) and a high CP (23 percent, DM basis).
However, good quality lentil screenings can be a useful protein- and energy-
rich feed because of the competitive price (Lardy and Anderson, 2009).

Lentil bran (hulls, chuni)

Lentil bran (called chuni in India) or lentil hulls are the outer envelopes of lentils
resulting from dehulling operations. Its fibre content (22 percent, DM basis)
is higher than those of the seeds and screenings. However, its composition
can vary extensively as it depends on the proportions of envelopes and kernel
fragments in the bran.
The in vitro DMD of lentil hulls (51 percent) was found to be lower than
that of broad bean (Vicia faba L.) hulls (57 percent), but was higher than that
of pea hulls (48 percent) (Mekasha et al., 2002; Mekasha et al., 2003). Yalçin,
Cetinkaya and Sehu (1992) also observed that in sacco degradability of DM
was lower for poor-quality lentil bran than for lentil screenings (30 vs 49
percent). Gendley et al. (2009) reported that the rumen fermentation was
166 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

improved when bulls were fed a diet of 50 percent lentil bran and 50 percent
wheat bran, compared either of these two alone in the diet.

Lentil straw
Lentil straw is the crop residue of lentil seed harvesting from the threshing
process. It is rich in fibre (ADF >30 percent, DM basis) and low in protein
(<10 percent, DM basis) though of a better quality than straws of small grain
cereals such as wheat straw (Lardy and Anderson, 2009). Several studies
have demonstrated that lentil straw has a lower NDF content, higher rumen
degradability and a higher whole tract digestibility than cereal straws (López
et al., 2005; Singh et al., 2011). In vivo OM digestibility values are between 47
and 55 percent (Dutta, Sharma and Naulia, 2004). Higher values, between 54
and 57 percent by in vitro methods, have been recorded (Denek and Deniz,
2004). In addition to different methods used for analysis, such differences may
also be due to the variable leaf:stem ratio, which depends on the harvesting
method. For instance, using in vitro gas production, a stem-rich lentil straw
was found to have an ME of 6.7 MJ/kg DM vs 8.3 MJ/kg DM for a leaf-rich
lentil straw (López et al., 2005). Dutta, Sharma and Naulia (2004) observed
that the nutritive value of lentil straw appeared to be no different from urea-
treated wheat straw (4 percent, w/w). However, a positive synergistic effect
was evident by feeding a mixture of lentil straw and urea-treated wheat straw
on performance of lactating buffaloes.

Sheep and goats

Haddad and Husein (2001) observed that the palatability, nutrient digestibility
and weight gain in Awassi ewe labs fed lentil straw were comparable to those
fed alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) hay, and higher than those fed bitter vetch
[Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd.] straw or wheat straw. A DMI of 70 g/kg for lentil
straw in sheep has been reported by Abreu and Bruno Soares (1998). Dutta,
Sharma and Naulia (2004) also observed that the nutritive value of lentil straw
appeared to be no different from urea-treated (4 percent, w/w) wheat straw.
However, a positive synergistic effect was evident on performance of goats by
feeding a mixture of lentil straw and the urea-treated wheat straw.

Pigs
Surplus and cull lentils are valuable feed for pigs as the levels of antinutritional
factors are relatively low (Blair, 2007). However, due to low sulphur amino
acid content in lentils, diet should be balanced with another protein source
(Blair, 2007) or with synthetic amino acids. Lentil seeds could be included
in growing-finishing pig diets at up to 40 percent without decreasing animal
performance. However, this high an inclusion rate had deleterious effects on
meat quality, and therefore a lower rate (10 percent) was recommended (Castell
and Cliplef, 1988). Castell and Cliplef (1990) reported that supplementing the
lentil-based diet with methionine (1 g/kg dietary level) resulted in better meat
Lentil 167

quality even at 40 percent lentil inclusion rate. In starter pigs, replacement

of soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] with lentils may be cost-effective but
the inclusion rate should not exceed 22.5 percent in the diet, because higher
levels decreased animal performance and feed conversion efficiency (Landero,
Beltranena and Zijlstra, 2012).

Poultry
Though the nutritional value of lentils in poultry is lower than that of mung
bean [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek] or chickpea (Wiryawan et al., 1995),
lentils are occasionally used in poultry diet (Blair, 2008), with supplementation
of sulphur amino acids (Wiryawan, 1997).

Broilers. Farhoomand (2006) included raw or processed (heated followed by

boiling) lentils in broiler diets at a concentration of 10, 20 and 30 percent.
Growth was best with 10 percent and lowest with 30 percent levels. Processing
did not confer any advantages. The authors suggested that lentil seeds could
be used in broiler diets up to 20 percent but not as the sole source of protein.
For broilers, lentils should be used in carefully formulated diets, with
consideration given to the amino acid levels.

Layers. Kiliçalp and Benli (1994) reported that the use of lentils in layers
diets led to decreased egg production even at low inclusion rates (5 percent).
Lentils might be used in layer diets because of low-price opportunities, but it
is essential to balance the amino acid content of the diet.

SUMMARY
Lentil seeds are a good source of protein and energy, but low in sulphur
amino acids. Lentil seeds and by-products (screenings and bran) can be
incorporated in ruminant feeding. Lentil straw can also be used in large
and small ruminant diets. Inclusion rate of lentil seeds should not exceed
10 percent in growing-finishing pig diets. Lentil seeds can be included up
to 20 percent in broilers ration, but are not recommended in layer rations.
Amino acid supplementation is recommended, when lentil seeds are used in
pig and poultry diets.

REFERENCES cited in chapter 10

Abreu, J.M.F. & Bruno-Soares, A.M. 1998. Characterization and utilization of rice, legume and
rape straws. Options Méditerranéennes: Série B Etudes et Recherches, 17: 39–51.
Available at: http://om.ciheam.org/article.php?IDPDF=98606149
Bejiga, G. 2006. Lens culinaris Medik. Record from Protabase. M. Brink and G. Belay (eds).
PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa/Ressources végétales de l’Afrique tropicale),
Wageningen, the Netherlands.
168 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Blair, R. 2007. Nutrition and feeding of organic pigs. Cabi Series, CABI, Wallingford, UK.
Blair, R. 2008. Nutrition and feeding of organic poultry. Cabi Series, CABI, Wallingford, UK.
Castell, A.G. & Cliplef, R.L. 1988. Live performance, carcass and meat quality characteristics of
market pigs self-fed diets containing cull-grade lentils. Canadian Journal of Animal Science,
68(1): 265–273.
Castell, A.G. & Cliplef, R.L. 1990. Methionine supplementation of barley diets containing
lentils (Lens culinaris) or soybean meal: live performance and carcass responses by gilts fed ad
libitum. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 70(1): 329–332.
Ron, A.M. de 2015. Grain Legumes. First edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.
Denek, N. & Deniz, S. 2004. The determination of digestibility and metabolizable energy levels
of some forages commonly used in ruminant nutrition by in vitro methods. Turk Veterinerlik
ve Hayvanclk Dergisi, 28(1): 115–122.
Dikshit, H.K., Singh, A., Singh, D., Aski, M.S., Prakash, P., Jain, N., Meena, S., Kumar, S.
& Sarker, A. 2015. Genetic diversity in Lens species revealed by EST and genomic simple
sequence repeat analysis. PLoS ONE 10(9): e0138101. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0138101
Dutta, N., Sharma, K. & Naulia, U. 2004. Nutritional evaluation of lentil (Lens culinaris) straw
and urea treated wheat straw in goats and lactating buffaloes. Asian-Australasian Journal of
Animal Science, 17(11): 1529–1534. DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2004.1529
Ecocrop. 2012. Ecocrop database. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/node/14283).
FAOSTAT. 2012. FAO Statistical Database.
FAOSTAT. 2014. FAO Statistical Database.
Farhoomand, P. 2006. Performance and carcass traits of lentil seed fed broilers. Indian
Veterinary Journal, 83(2): 187–190.
Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ/FAO.
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
Ferguson, M.E., Maxted, N., Slageren, M.V. & Robertson, L.D. 2000. A re-assessment of the
taxonomy of Lens Mill. (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae, Vicieae). Botanical Journal of The
Linnean Society, 133: 41–59. DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2000.tb01536.x
Ford, R., Rubeena, Redden, R.J., Materne, M. & Taylor, P.W.J. 2007. Lentil. In: K. Chittarajan.
Genome Mapping and Molecular Breeding in Plants, 3: 91–108.
Gendley, M., Singh, P., Garg, A.K., Tiwari, S.P., Kumari, K. & Dutta, G.K. 2009. The studies
on nutrient balances in crossbred cattle bulls fed chopped green sugarcane tops supplemented
with some agro industrial by-products. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 41: 943–949.
DOI: 10.1007/s11250-008-9283-6
Gilbery, T.C., Lardy, G.P., Soto-Navarro, S.A., Bauer, M.L. & Anderson, V.L. 2007. Effect
of field peas, chickpeas and lentils on rumen fermentation, digestion and microbial protein
synthesis in receiving diets for beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 85(11): 3045–3053.
DOI: 10.2527/jas.2006-651
Haddad, S.G. & Husein, M.Q. 2001. Nutritive value of lentil and vetch straws as compared with
alfalfa hay and wheat straw for replacement ewe lambs. Small Ruminant Research, 40(3): 255–260.
Hanelt, P. 2001. Lens Mill. pp. 849–852, In: P. Hanelt (ed). Mansfeld’s encyclopedia of agricultural
and horticultural crops. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
Lentil 169

Hefnawy, T.H. 2011. Effect of processing methods on nutritional composition and anti-
nutritional factors in lentil (Lens culinaris). Annals of Agricultural Sciences, 56(2): 57–61.
DOI: 10.1016/j.aoas.2011.07.001
Kiliçalp, N. & Benli, Y. 1994. Possibilities of using lentil flour in rations for layers. Hayvancılık
Araştırma Dergisi, 4(1): 47–49.
Kole, C., Gupta, D., Ford, R. & Taylor, P.J. 2011. Lens. Pp. 127–139, In: Wild Crop
Relatives: Genomic and Breeding Resources. Springer, Germany.
Kumar, S., Barpete, S., Kumar, J., Gupta, P. & Sarker, A. 2013. Global lentil production: Constraints
and Strategies. SATSA Mukhapatra – Annual Technical Issue 17: 1–13.
Landero, J.L., Beltranena, E. & Zijlstra, R.T. 2012. The effect of feeding lentil on growth
performance and diet nutrient digestibility in starter pigs. Animal Feed Science and
Technology, 174(1–2): 108–112. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.02.010
Lardy, G. & Anderson, V. 2009. Alternative feeds for ruminants. General concepts and
recommendations for using alternative feeds. North Dakota State University Fargo, AS–1182,
USA. (Revised) . 24p.
López, S., Davies, D.R., Giraldez, F.J., Dhanoa, M.S., Dijkstra, J. & France, J. 2005.
Assessment of nutritive value of cereal and legume straws based on chemical composition
and in vitro digestibility. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85(9): 1550–1557.
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2136
Mekasha, Y., Tegegne, A., Yami, A. & Umunna, N.N. 2002. Evaluation of non-conventional agro-
industrial by-products as supplementary feeds for ruminants: in vitro and metabolism study
with sheep. Small Ruminant Research, 44(1): 25–35. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-4488(02)00009-3
Mekasha, Y., Tegegne, A., Yami, A., Umunna, N.N. & Nsahlai, I.V. 2003. Effects of
supplementation of grass hay with non-conventional agro-industrial by-products on rumen
fermentation characteristics and microbial nitrogen supply in rams. Small Ruminant Research,
50(1–2):141–151. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-4488(03)00106-8
Singh, S., Kushwaha, B.P., Nag, S.K., Mishra, A.K., Bhattacharya, S., Gupta, P.K. & Singh,
A. 2011. In vitro methane emission from Indian dry roughages in relation to chemical
composition. Current Science, 101(1): 57–65.
Available at: http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/101/01/0057.pdf
Stanford, K., Wallins, G.L., Lees, B.M. & Mundel, H.H. 1999. Use of lentil screenings in the
diets of early weaned lambs and ewes in the second trimester of pregnancy. Animal Feed
Science and Technology, 81(3–4): 249–264.
Wang, N. & Daun, J.K. 2006. Effects of variety and crude protein content on nutrients and anti-
nutrients in lentils (Lens culinaris). Food Chemistry, 95(3): 493–502.
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.02.001
Wiryawan, K.G. 1997. New vegetable protein for layers. Final report for project UQ-21E,
Department of Animal Production, University of Queensland.
Wiryawan, K.G., Dingle, J.G., Kumar, A., Gaughan, J.B. & Young, B.A. 1995. True
metabolisable energy content of grain legumes: effects of enzyme supplementation. In: Rowe,
J.B., Nolan, J.V. (Eds.), Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition in Australia. University of New
England, Armidale. pp 196.
Yalçin, S., Cetinkaya, N. & Sehu, A. 1992. Ruminal degradation characteristics of lentil
by-products. Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi, Ankara Universitesi, 39(3): 404–413.
 171

Chapter 11
Common vetch
COMMON NAMES
Common vetch, garden vetch, tare, the vesce (English); vesce commune,
vesce cultivée (French); veza, alverja común (Spanish); ervilhaca (Portuguese);
voederwikke (Dutch); Futterwicke, Saatwicke (German); veccia comune
(Italian).

DISTRIBUTION
The common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) is native to Southern Europe (Frame,
2005). It is now cultivated throughout the Mediterranean, West and Central
Asia, China, Eastern Asia, India and the United States of America.

DESCRIPTION
The common vetch is a scrambling annual herb growing up to 2 m tall. Its stem
is four-angled and sometimes hairy and can be branched, unbranched, climbing
or decumbent (trailing along the ground). It has a slender highly branched
taproot that can go down to 1 to 1.5 m deep. Its stems are thin, angled,
procumbent and branched, reaching up to 2 m. The leaves are composed of 3–8
pairs of opposite leaflets and a terminal 2–3 branched tendril that assists the
climbing habit. The leaflets are elliptic or oblong, 1.5–3.5 cm long, 5–15 mm
wide. Stems and leaves are mainly glabrous. The flowers, borne in leaf axils,
are blue to purple, sometimes white, mostly paired,
sometimes single. Pods are cylindrical, 3.5–8 cm long
and erect; with 4–12 round but flattened, black to Step,1895/Digitized by Robarts Library of the University of Toronto
brownish seeds (UC SAREP, 2006; FAO, 2010).

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR CULTIVATION

The common vetch is moderately tolerant of cold
and can grow in areas with mild winters (UC
SAREP, 2006). It grows on a wide range of soils. It
does well on loams, sandy loams, or gravelly soils,
as well as on fine-textured clay soils as long as there
is good drainage. It can tolerate soil pH of 5.5–8.2,
but optimum pH is 6.5. Although common vetch
tolerates short periods of saturated soils, it does not
tolerate extended waterlogging. It is found in areas
with annual rainfall ranging from 310 to 1 630 mm. It
does not tolerate drought during the early stages of Photo 11.1.1 Coloured line drawing
establishment, and it is advisable to plant it in autumn of common vetch (Vicia sativa L.)
(UC SAREP, 2006; FAO, 2010). showing pods and flowers
172 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Table 11.1 Chemical composition of common vetch and its by-products (percent, DM basis)
Parameter Seeds Aerial fresh Hay Straw

Crude protein 14.7–35.8 12.5–35.9 16.9–22.5 6.0–8.3

Ether extract 0.9–3.0 1.2–3.1 0.7–2.4 1.2–1.5
Crude fibre 4.2–5.7 21.3–35.1 20.4–28.5 34.4–41.5
Ash 2.4–7.5 4.8–12.0 9.0–12.3 8.7–12.3
NDF 13.6–21.7 13.1–46.6 27.1–47.8 56.0–64.7
ADF 3.8–9.6 24.3–33.7 20.6–35.2 39.0–45.8
Lignin 0.9 6.1 4.4–8.5 7.4–10.4
Calcium 0.04–1.38 0.49–1.51 1.11–1.79 1.30–2.12
Phosphorus 0.37–0.60 0.26–0.61 0.09–0.70 0.07–0.22
Notes: DM (as fed) is 75.0–91.0 percent for seeds, 16.2–25.8 percent for aerial fresh, 84.8–92.8 percent for hay,
and 90.1–92.0 percent for straw.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016).

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Common vetch seeds contain anti-nutritional factors such as cyanogenic
amino acids, and cyanogenic glycosides that are toxic to monogastric animals.
Therefore, its use in pigs and poultry is restricted (Tate and Enneking, 2006).
The mature seed contains the neurotoxin gamma-glutamyl-beta-cyanoalanine,
which affects the conversion of methionine to cysteine, and has indirect
effects on glutathione metabolism (Collins et al., 2002). The toxins damage
the nervous system, with signs such as convulsion and leg paralysis. However,
several varieties of common vetch have low levels of this toxin. For example,
cyanoalanine concentrations of 9–12 g/kg and ~13 g/kg have been reported in
cultivars Blanchefleur and Languedoc, respectively, while common vetch cv.
Morava is reported to contain cyanoalanine levels of less than 7 g/kg (Collins
et al., 2002). Thus, it would make possible to include seed of low cyanogenic
content genotypes in pig and poultry diets (Tate and Enneking, 2006). Post-
harvest detoxification treatments such as mild acid hydrolysis have proved to
be effective, but are costly (Enneking, 1995).
Generally, common vetch forage does not contain anti-nutritional factors
when it is grazed or cut frequently enough to prevent flowering and seed-
heading. However, some cases of poisoning of ruminants consuming common
vetch forage have been reported. The symptoms of poisoning include
severe dermatitis, skin oedema, conjunctivitis, corneal ulcers and diarrhoea.
Occasional death of animals has also been reported (Suter, 2002; Mayland et
al., 2007).

FEEDING OF SEEDS AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS

Ruminants
Common vetch seeds. Valentine and Bartsch (1996) observed reduction in milk
yield, fat and protein on supplementation with a barley+common vetch grain
mixture (1:1; 8 kg/day, fresh basis) in dairy cows, but there was no reduction
in feed intake or liveweight gain. The milk can become bitter if dairy cows
Common vetch 173

are fed 2 kg/day of common vetch seed, and the taste of vicine and convicine
passes into the milk, which renders it unsuitable for both direct consumption
and cheese production. Common vetch-related deterioration of milk quality
can be easily monitored by taste analysis and may be transitory in nature.
The milk obtained from animals unaccustomed to feeding on diets containing
common vetch grain should be tested for the presence of vicine as well as beta-
cyanoalanine and gamma-glutamyl-beta-cyanoalanine and their metabolites. A
maximum feeding rate of 3 kg/head/day is recommended by Enneking (1995).
Gül et al. (2005a) observed that the supplementation of common vetch
seeds to diets of Awassi lambs at 0, 15 and 25 percent rates showed no
statistical differences in fattening performance, wholesale cuts of carcasses,
meat colour parameters and pH values, but there was improvement in feed
conversion efficiency.

Common vetch forage. Common vetch provides palatable forage (fresh, hay
or silage) for livestock. Common vetch may be sown in pure stands or mixed
with a cereal companion that helps it to climb and thus precludes rotting
during winter. Biomass yields in pure stands or in mixed pastures range from
1 to 6 tonne DM/ha in the Mediterranean basin (FAO, 2010) and up to 8 tonne
DM/ha in the United States of America (Sattell et al., 1998). Common vetch
is tolerant of short cutting before flowering and to high cutting at flowering
(Sattell et al., 1998). Fresh common vetch at early flowering has a protein
content of about 24 percent (DM basis), and OM digestibility in sheep is 74
percent. Nutritive value decreases with maturity but digestibility remains
relatively high (69 percent) at the mature seed stage (Sattell et al., 1998).

Common vetch hay. Common vetch hay is a valuable forage with an OM

digestibility of 69 percent and a CP content close to 20 percent (DM basis;
Table 11.1). Haj Ayed et al. (2001) observed that common vetch hay shows
a progressive decrease in digestibility and degradability as its vegetative
structures mature, unlike winter vetch (Vicia villosa Roth), which benefits
from a compensatory effect produced by increasing grain proportions as the
plant ages. The nutritive value at flowering was higher for common vetch hay
than for winter vetch hay, but the opposite was observed at maturity. Voluntary
DMI was not affected by the species or harvest stages (Haj Ayed et al., 2001).
Haj Ayed et al. (2001) observed that in sacco N degradability is quite high
at flowering (78 percent effective degradability) and decreases with maturity
(65 percent at seed filling). At seed filling, the high rumen bypass protein and
low ratio of “structural carbohydrates:non-fibre carbohydrates” suggests that
common vetch forage should be harvested at this stage (Caballero et al., 2001).
Berhane and Eik (2006a) observed that common vetch hay supplementation
(0, 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 percent BW) lineary increased milk yield by up to 50
percent, but decreased percent fat and total solids in milk of both Begait and
Abergelle goats. Berhane and Eik (2006b) also observed that kid weight at
174 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

birth, at 90 days and 270 days also increased significantly with this level of
supplementation.

Common vetch silage. Field wilting or silage additives are required to

prevent poor silage production due to low concentrations of water-soluble
carbohydrates and the high buffering capacity of common vetch (Kaiser, Dear
and Morris, 2007).

Common vetch straw. Common vetch straw has a nutritive value higher than
that of cereal straws (barley, oat or wheat), with an OM digestibility of 53
percent and a CP content >6 percent (DM basis). The energy value of common
vetch straw is close to that of ammonia-treated cereal straws and the N value
is intermediate between that of untreated and ammonia-treated cereal straws
(Tisserand and Alibes, 1989).

Pigs
Common vetch seeds are a potential alternative protein source for pigs due
to their high protein and lysine content. However, their use in pig feeding
has been limited by the detrimental effects of their toxins on feed intake and
growth performance. Enneking (1995) observed that maximum safe levels for
common vetch seeds could be up to 20 percent for growing pigs and 10 percent
for piglets. The author has also noted that the contents of cyanoalanine and
cynogenic glycosides differ amongst individual cultivars and hence the safe
feeding of common vetch seeds depends on the cultivar used.
In Australia, low-cyanoalanine varieties have been marketed as suitable for
pigs up to 35 percent of the diet, though even a 10 percent inclusion rate was
considered to be encouraging enough to lead to an increased planting of this
species (Enneking, 1995). The Morava cultivar, which contains very low levels
of cyanoalanine (less than 7 g/kg) was tested successfully in the early 2000s. It
was possible to include it in the diet up to 22.5 percent for growing pigs (41 to
65 kg BW), without affecting growth performance, and at less than 15 percent
for finishing pigs. Higher rates caused significant decreases in feed intake and
growth. The total tract apparent digestibility of energy was 14.3 MJ/kg (Seabra
et al., 2001; Collins et al., 2002; Collins et al., 2005a; Collins et al., 2005b). In
Poland, a low-vicianine common vetch cultivar was used in pig finishing diets
at 15–18 percent. It partly replaced soybean meal in the first stage of finishing
(from 40 to 70 kg BW) and completely in the finishing stage. Weight gains of
about 800 g/d and a feed conversion ratio of 3.08 were observed (Potkanski
et al., 1999)

Poultry
Common vetch seed has been used as an alternative source of protein in
poultry diets (Darre et al., 1999). Raw seeds are detrimental for poultry species
(Saki et al., 2008) due to presence of anti-nutritional factors that interfere
Common vetch 175

with efficient utilization of common vetch, such as beta-cyanoalanine, vicine,

concivine and tannins (Abdullah et al., 2010). The incorporation of untreated
common vetch seeds at higher than 15 percent in broiler diets and 20 percent
in layer diets decreased their performance (Gül et al., 2005b).

Broilers. Devi et al. (1997) reported that replacing 25 or 50 percent of the

dietary protein by proteins from common vetch seeds resulted in a significant
reduction in weight gain and feed intake in young chicks. This negative effect
increased with increase in the seed protein level in the diet. Darre et al. (1999)
reported that growth rate and feed utilization in young broilers were not
affected while supplementing 10 percent cooked and raw seeds, from a low
beta-cyanoalanine variety. Cooked and raw seeds had deleterious effects on
body weight gain when used at 20 percent or more in broiler diets, and a
maximum of 10 percent was recommended by Saki et al. (2008). About 60
percent unprocessed common vetch seeds in the diet were detrimental to
broilers, and caused 100 percent mortality (Farran et al., 2001).
Farran et al. (2001) observed that soaking the seeds in acetic acid at room
temperature resulted in no detrimental effects on broiler performance at a 60
percent inclusion rate, though processing did not prevent metabolic disorders
from occurring. Sadeghi, Tabeidian and Toghyani (2011) observed that
unprocessed common vetch seeds can be used up to 10 percent in grower diets
of broiler chickens. The processing of seed (soaking the seeds in water (1:1,
w/v) at room temperature for 10 hours, or cooking at 95 °C for 90 minutes,
again washing, cooking at 95 °C for 93 minutes, and finally sun drying) could
improve the nutritional value of seeds because the productive performance of
birds fed 20 percent of processed seeds was similar to that of control birds.

Layers. A number of studies have highlighted the detrimental effect of

unprocessed common vetch seeds on layer health and performance (Gül
et al., 2005b; Kaya 2011). Hens given diets containing 10 percent common
vetch ate less feed and produced fewer eggs. The reduction in feed intake
was high compared with the drop in egg production, but the specific gravity
of eggs increased. Hens fed on diets with 5 percent common vetch seeds had
a significant increase in the yolk index. Other indicators of egg quality, as
well as serum calcium and inorganic phosphorus levels, were similar between
groups. Processing can help to increase the inclusion rate of common vetch
seeds in layers diets. Autoclaved common vetch seeds could be included up
to 25 percent in diets of layers (Farran et al., 1995). Gül et al. (2005b) showed
that raw common vetch seeds fed at 22 percent level are detrimental to laying
performance and egg quality. Kaya (2011) reported that soaked (in water for
72 hours) and boiled (100 °C for 30 minutes) common vetch seeds may safely
be used up to the 25 percent level in rations for laying hens.
176 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

SUMMARY
Common vetch provides palatable forage, having about 24 percent protein
(DM basis). Forage at mature seed stage also has 69 percent organic matter
digestibility. Common vetch straw contains more than 6 percent protein
(DM basis), with 53 percent digestibility. Common vetch hay is valuable
forage for small and large ruminants. Feeding of common vetch seeds can
be recommended up to 3 kg/day in dairy cattle. Maximum safe levels for
common vetch seeds could be up to 20 percent for growing pigs and 10
percent for piglets. Raw and processed (soaking and cooking) seeds can be
included up to 10 and 20 percent, respectively in broilers diet. Processed seeds
may safely be used up to 25 percent level in laying hens.

REFERENCES cited in chapter 11

Abdullah, A.Y., Muwalla, M.M., Qudsieh R.I. & Titi, H.H. 2010. Effect of bitter vetch (Vicia
ervilia) seeds as a replacement protein source of soybean meal on performance and carcass
characteristics of finishing Awassi lambs. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 42(2): 293–
300. DOI: 10.1007/s11250-009-9420-x
Berhane, G. & Eik, L.O. 2006a. Effect of vetch (Vicia sativa) hay supplementation on performance
of Begait and Abergelle goats in northern Ethiopia: I. Milk yield and composition. Small
Ruminant Research, 64(3): 225–232. DOI: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.04.021
Berhane, G. & Eik, L.O. 2006b. Effect of vetch (Vicia sativa) hay supplementation to Begait
and Abergelle goats in northern Ethiopia: II. Reproduction and growth rate. Small Ruminant
Research, 64(3): 233–240. DOI: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.04.020
Caballero, R., Alzueta, C., Ortiz, L., Rodriguez, M., Barro, C. & Rebole, A. 2001.
Carbohydrate and protein fractions of fresh and dried common vetch at three maturity stages.
Agronomy Journal, 93(5): 1006–1013. DOI: 10.2134/agronj2001.9351006x
Collins, C.L., Dunshea, F.R., Henman, D.J. & King, R.H. 2005a. Evaluation of common vetch
(Vicia sativa cv. Morava) for growing pigs. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture,
45(6): 699–703. DOI: 10.1071/EA04111
Collins, C.L., Dunshea, F.R., Henman, D.J., McCauley, I. & King, R.H. 2005b. The apparent
ileal digestibility of amino acids in common vetch (Vicia sativa cv. Morava). Australian
Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 45(6): 705–709. DOI: 10.1071/EA04112
Collins, C.L., Henman, D.J., King, R.H. & Dunshea, F.R. 2002. Common vetch (Vicia sativa cv
Morava) is an alternative protein source in pig diets. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of
Australia, vol. 26, publ as Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2002, 11(Suppl): 249.
Darre, M.J., Minior, D.N., Tatake, J.G & Ressler, C. 1999. Nutritional evaluation of detoxified
and raw common vetch seed (Vicia sativa L.) using diets of broilers. Journal of agricultural and
food chemistry, 46(11): 4675–4679. DOI: 10.1021/jf980931i
Devi, A., Kalia, M., Gupta, V.K. & Katoch, B.S. 1997. Effect of feeding different levels of
khesari (Lathyrus sativus) and vetch (Vicia sativa) proteins on the performance of starter
chicks. Indian Journal of Nutrition and Dietics, 34(2): 49–58.
Enneking, D. 1995. The toxicity of Vicia species and their utilisation as grain legumes. Centre for
Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture (CLIMA) Occasional Publication No. 6, University
Common vetch 177

of Western Australia, Nedlands W.A. (First edition, Enneking, D. (1994) PhD thesis,
University of Adelaide).
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2010. Grassland Index. A
searchable catalogue of grass and forage legumes.
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/node/4260
Farran, M.T., Dakessian, P.B., Darwish, A.H., Uwayjan, M.G., Dbouk, H.K., Sleiman, F.T. &
Ashkarian, V.M. 2001. Performance of broilers and production and egg quality parameters
of laying hens fed 60% raw or treated common vetch (Vicia sativa) seeds. Poultry Science,
80(2): 203–208. DOI: 10.1093/ps/80.2.203
Farran, M.T., Uwayjan, M.G., Miski, A.M.A., Sleiman, F.T., Adada, F.A., Ashkarian, V.M. &
Thomas, O.P. 1995. Effect of feeding raw and treated common vetch seed (Vicia sativa) on the
performance and egg quality parameters of laying hens. Poultry Science, 74(10): 1630–1635.
DOI: 10.3382/ps.0741630
Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ/FAO.
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
Frame, J. 2005. Forage legumes for temperate grasslands. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Gül, M., Yörük, M.A., Macit, M., Esenbuga, N., Karaoglu, M., Aksakal, V. & Aksu, M.I.
2005a. The effects of diets containing different levels of common vetch (Vicia sativa) seed on
fattening performance, carcass and meat quality characteristics of Awassi male lambs. Journal
of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85(9): 1439–1443. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2120
Gül, M., Yoruk, M.A., Hayirli, A., Turgut, L. & Karaoglu, M. 2005b. Effects of additives on
laying performance and egg quality of hens fed a high level of common vetch seed (Vicia
sativa) during the peak period. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 14(2): 217–225.
DOI: 10.1093/japr/14.2.217
Haj Ayed, M., Gonzalez, J., Caballero, R. & Alvir, M.R. 2001. Effects of maturity on nutritive
value of field-cured hays from common vetch and hairy vetch. Animal Research, 50(1): 31–42.
DOI: 10.1051/animres:2001103
Kaiser, A.G., Dear, B.S. & Morris, S.G. 2007. An evaluation of the yield and quality of
oat-legume and ryegrass-legume mixtures and legume monocultures harvested at three
stages of growth for silage. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 47(1): 25–38.
DOI: 10.1071/EA05221
Kaya, H., Çelebi, S., Macit, M. & Geyikoğlu, F. 2011. The effects of raw and physical processed
common vetch seed (Vicia sativa) on laying performance, egg quality, metabolic parameters
and liver histopathology of laying hens. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences,
24(10): 1425–1434. DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2011.11041
Mayland, H.F., Cheeke, P.R., Majak, W.& Goff, J.P. 2007. Forage-induced Animal Disorders.
In: R.F. Barnes, C.J. Nelson, K.J. Moore and M. Collins (eds). Forages: The science of grassland
agriculture, Volume II, sixth edition. : Wiley-Blackwell. Ames, Iowa, USA.
Potkanski, A., Rutkowski, A., Frankiewicz, A., Kusnierek, W. & Mikulski, S. 1999. Effect
of vetch seeds as a source of protein in pig and poultry nutrition. Roczniki Naukowe
Zootechniki, 26(3): 185–197.
Sadeghi, G.H., Tabeidian, S.A. & Toghyani, M. 2011. Effect of processing on the nutritional
value of common vetch (Vicia sativa) seed as a feed ingredient for broilers. Journal of Applied
Poultry Research, 20: 498–505. DOI: 10.3382/japr.2010-00306
178 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Saki, A.A., Pourhesabi, G., Yaghobfar, A., Mosavi, M.A., Tabatabai, M.M. & Abbasinezhad,
M. 2008. Effect of different levels of the raw and processed vetch seed (Vicia sativa) on broiler
performance. Journal of Biological Sciences, 8(3): 663–666.
Available at: http://www.docsdrive.com/pdfs/ansinet/jbs/2008/663-666.pdf
Sattell, R., Dick, R., Luna, J., McGrath, D. & Peachey, E. 1998. Common Vetch (Vicia
sativa L.). In: Oregon cover crops. Oregon State University Extension Service, Corvallis.
Seabra, M., Carvalho, S., Freire, J., Ferreira, R., Mourato, M., Cunha, L., Cabral, F., Teixeira,
A. & Aumaitre, A. 2001. Lupinus luteus, Vicia sativa and Lathyrus cicera as protein sources
for piglets: ileal and total tract apparent digestibility of amino acids and antigenic effects.
Animal Feed Science and Technology, 89(1–2): 1–16. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8401(00)00230-3
Suter, R.J. 2002. Suspected cyanide poisoning in cows fed vetch (Vicia sativa) hay. Australian
Veterinary Journal, 80(5): 282.
Tate, M.E. & Enneking, D.E. 2006. Vetches: from feed to food? Grain Legumes No. 47, special
report: 11–22.
Tisserand, J.L. & Alibes, X. 1989. Feeds of the Mediterranean area. Pp. 305–324, In: R. Jarrige
(ed.) Ruminant Nutrition, recommended allowances and feed tables. INRA and John Libbey
Eurotext, London, Paris.
UC SAREP. 2006. Cover crop database. University of California, Sustainable Agriculture
Research & Education Program, Davis.
Valentine, S.C. & Bartsch, B.D. 1996. Production and composition of milk by dairy cows fed
common vetch or lupin as protein supplements to a silage- and pasture-based diet in early
lactation. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 36: 633–636.
DOI: 10.1071/EA9960523
 179

Chapter 12
Lupins
LATIN AND RESPECTIVE COMMON NAMES
Lupinus albus: white lupin; Lupinus angustifolius: Australian sweet lupin,
blue lupin or narrow-leaved lupin; Lupinus luteus: yellow lupin; Lupinus
mutabilis: Andean lupin, chocho, pearl lupin, tarwi (English); lupin blanc
(French); weisse lupine (German); lupino bianco (Italian); altramuz blanco,
chocho, chorcho,entremozo, lupino blanco (Spanish); tremoceiro, tremoceiro
branco, tremoceiro da Beira, tremoço (Portuguese).

DISTRIBUTION
It has long been known that lupins (different species of the genus Lupinus L.)
were domesticated independently as pulse crops in both the Mediterranean
and the Andes (Gladstones, Atkins and Hamblin, 1998). Lupins are currently
grown as forage and pulse in the Russian Federation, Poland, Germany, the
Mediterranean, and as a cash crop in Australia, where it is exported to the
European seed markets. Both winter-hardy and non-hardy types are available.
White lupin (Lupinus albus L.) is thought to have originated in southeastern
Europe and western Asia (Jansen, 2006). The wild type [Lupinus albus subsp.
graecus (Boiss. and Spruner) Franco and P. Silva] is found in southeastern
Europe and western Asia. The modern cultivars of blue lupin (Lupinus
angustifolius L.) is an established feed resource for the intensive animal
industries of Australia, Japan, Korea and several other countries in Asia and
Europe (Petterson, 2000).

DESCRIPTION
There are over 300 species of the genus Lupinus, but many have high levels
of alkaloids (bitter tasting compounds) that make the seed unpalatable and
sometimes toxic. Historically,
lupin alkaloids have been
removed from the seed by
soaking. But plant breeders in
the 1920s in Germany produced
the first selections of alkaloid-
free or “sweet” lupin, which can
© FAO/Teodardo Calles

be directly consumed by humans

or livestock (Gladstones, Atkins
and Hamblin, 1998). Cultivated
species of lupin used in animal
feeding worldwide are white
lupin, blue lupin and yellow Photo 12.1.1 Seeds of Andean lupin (Lupinus mutabilis Sweet)
180 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

lupin (Lupinus luteus L.), which all originated from the Mediterranean area
(Kim, Pluske and Mullan, 2007). There is also increasing interest in using
the Andean lupin (Lupinus mutabilis Sweet) in diets for pigs because of its
high protein (43 percent, DM basis) and oil (18 percent, DM basis) contents
compared with other lupin species (Kim, Pluske and Mullan, 2007).
White lupin has flowers that are white to violet-blue. The seed is flat, has
a whitish seed coat and typically weighs about 350 mg (Petterson, 2000). Blue
lupin has flowers that are normally blue and hence its common name. In the
1960s, the leucospermus gene for white-flowered and white-seeded sweet,
low-alkaloid, types was successfully introduced (Gladstones, Atkins and
Hamblin, 1998). At present about 12 varieties of blue lupin are available for
use. To minimize confusion and to differentiate these varieties from others,
it is often also referred to as Australian sweet lupin. Yellow lupin has golden
yellow flowers. A typical seed weight is about 120 mg, and it is more ellipsoid
in shape than seed of blue lupin (Petterson, 2000).
Lupins are annual upright plants with coarse stems and medium-sized
finger like leaves. In thin stands they branch quite freely. White lupin is a
non-native, annual legume, reaching heights up to 120 cm. It has a strong
taproot penetrating over 0.6 m into the soil (Brebaum and Boland, 1995).
Leaves are alternate and compound with 5–9 leaflets, nearly smooth above and
hairy beneath. Individual plants produce several orders of inflorescences and
branches, resulting in clusters of long, oblong pods, each cluster having 3–7
pods, and each pod containing 3–7 seeds.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR CULTIVATION

Lupin is a cool-season crop, and is relatively tolerant to spring frosts.
Early planting is ideal due to the plants’ cold tolerance. Lupin can tolerate
temperatures of -9 °C. Minimum soil temperatures at planting should be
7–10 °C. Flowering is a critical stage in lupin production. Early planting is
a method to avoid these higher temperatures at flowering (GGI, 2003). The
flowering process is affected by high temperatures, which cause blasting of
flowers and a subsequent yield reduction. In areas that normally experience
high temperatures in early summer, such as many parts of southern Minnesota
and Wisconsin, the risk to the crop is high. Lupin is adapted to well-drained,
coarsely textured, and neutral-to-acidic soils. Iron chlorosis and disease
problems often result from plantings on poorly drained, high pH soils.
Reports from Minnesota, New York and parts of New England indicate that
many lupin production problems are due to planting on soils too heavy, too
wet, or too high in pH (USDA, 2014).

PRODUCTION OF LUPIN SEEDS

The major producers of white lupin seed are Australia, Europe, South Africa,
the Russian Fderation, Australia and the United States of America. The world
producer and exporter of lupin seed is Australia, whose production represents
Lupins 181

Table 12.1 Chemical composition of lupins and their by-products (percent, DM basis)
Seeds, white Seeds, Aerial fresh, Straw,
Parameter Seeds, blue Straw, white
yellow white yellow

Crude protein 35.8 29.8–37.7 34.4–48.4 18.3–27.9 5.9 6.7

Ether extract 9.4 4.7–7.2 4.6–6.3 2.6–3.6
Crude fibre 10.6 13.1–20.0 13.5–20.2 17.1–28.1 55.3 49.9
Ash 3.3 2.9–4.3 3.6–6.5 6.3–13.9 4.1 4.7
NDF 17.6 20.3–30.6 21.6–28.6 31.1 82.4 88.6
ADF 14.6 17.9–24.5 18.4–24.6 25.6 63.8 58.3
Lignin 0.7 0.3–3.5 1.4–4.9 4.1 12.6 9.9
Calcium 0.20 0.22–0.42 0.29 1.26–1.28 0.43 0.66
Phosphorus 0.36 0.29–0.47 0.92 0.25–0.27 0.10 0.12
Notes: DM (as fed) is 91.4 percent for white seed, 87.7–92.4 percent for blue seed, 85.5–91.5 percent for yellow seed,
11.1–92.0 percent for white aerial fresh, 90.3 percent for white straw, and 90.5 percent for yellow straw.
ADF = acid detergent fibre; NDF = neutral detergent fibre.
Source: Feedipedia (2016); Kim, Pluske and Mullan (2007).

80–85 percent of global production, of which 90–95 percent is exported

(White, Staines and Staines, 2007). Approximately 40 percent of the exported
lupin seed is used as feed for dairy and meat-type cattle, 40 percent as feed for
pigs and the rest is equally distributed for the nutrition of sheep, goats and
poultry (White, Staines and Staines, 2007).

NUTRITIONAL VALUE
Among legume seeds, lupin seeds are one of the richest (Kohajdova,
Karovičova and Schmidt, 2011). Chemical composition of lupin is influenced
by species. Lupins are a good source of nutrients, not only proteins but
also lipids, dietary fibre, minerals, and vitamins (Martinez-Villaluenga et al.,
2009). Sweet white lupin is high in CP (32–38 percent, DM basis) and total
digestible nutrients (75–80 percent), low in oil (10 percent, DM basis), and
does not contain trypsin inhibitors. Their high protein content makes them a
valuable resource for feeding to monogastric and ruminants because they are
cost competitive against a wide range of other protein sources. Furthermore,
their low levels of starch and high levels of fermentable carbohydrate make
them a highly desirable ruminant feed due to the low risk of acidosis. The
comparatively high levels of soluble and insoluble non-starch polysaccharides
can influence the utilization of other nutrients in lupins and hence they must
be used strategically if livestock production responses are to be optimized.
In addition, because of comparatively low levels of the sulphur amino acids,
methionine and cysteine, in lupin seeds, supplementation with other proteins
or synthetic amino acids are required, particularly in monogastric diets
(USDA, 2014).
Although lupins are relatively high in protein (Table 12.1), the biological
value of the protein is limited due to relatively low levels of methionine and
lysine. However, low levels of these amino acids are of little or no consequence
to ruminants where the protein is mostly rumenant fermented. In pig and
182 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

poultry diets these shortfalls can be made up from other proteins or synthetic
amino acids. Lupin is among eight potential vegetable sources of protein
for use in feed and food that replace proteins of animal origin in the diets
(Dijkstra, Linnemann and van Boekel, 2003).

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS
Anti-nutritional factors in lupin seeds include non-starch polysaccharides,
oligosaccharides, trypsin inhibitors, chymotrypsin inhibitors, tannins,
saponins, phytin and alkaloids. Levels of these anti-nutritional factors in seeds
of recent cultivars of lupin are similar to the levels found in soybean [Glycine
max (L.) Merr.] meal, and can be considered low enough for use in pig diets
without problems, except oligosaccharides and alkaloids (Kim, Pluske and
Mullan, 2007).
More than 170 alkaloids of the quinolizidine group have been identified
in different Lupinus species (Wink, 1988; 1993b), which act as part of a
defence strategy against herbivores and micro-organisms (Wink, 1983; 1992).
The main structural types of quinolizidine alkaloids belong to the groups
lupinine, sparteine/lupanine/multi-florine, α-pyridone, matrine, Ormosia,
piperidine and dipiperidine alkaloids (Kinghorn and Balandrin, 1984; Wink,
1993a). Sparteine and lupanine are the most widely distributed quinolizidine
alkaloids in the genus Lupinus (Wink, Meissner and Witte, 1995). The
presence of quinolizidine alkaloids and some anti-nutritional factors results
in characteristically bitter taste, rendering the crop unacceptable for food/feed
(Martini et al., 2008; Erbas, 2010).
Chemical treatment of lupin grain is the most common processing method
suggested to reduce alkaloid content of the crop (Arslan and Seker, 2002).
The bitter varieties of lupins contain a toxic alkaloid and should not be fed to
animals unless the alkaloid is removed by soaking in water (Feedipedia, 2016).
Since most alkaloids in white lupin are water-soluble, the alkaloid levels can be
decreased by soaking them in running water, brine, or scalding water (Erbas,
Certel and Uslu, 2004). The sweet (alkaloid-free) genotypes, which can be
distinguished by taste and smaller growth, are palatable to livestock. Sweet
lupins are largely free of anti-nutritional factors such as trypsin inhibitors,
lectins and saponins. White lupin seeds are generally classified as sweet or
bitter depending on the alkaloid content, which ranges from 0.01 to 4 percent
(Bhardwaj and Hamama, 2012). To overcome the anti-nutritional properties
of lupins, plant breeding programmes have selected cultivars with almost zero
alkaloid content, and current lupin cultivars are largely alkaloid free (Nalle,
Ravindran and Ravindran, 2011).
When animals graze lupin stubble, a disease called lupinosis can develop.
Lupinosis is a liver disease mainly caused by the consumption of lupin stalks
colonised by the fungus Diaporthe toxica. Symptoms are loss of appetite and
jaundice. Lupinosis has been a problem in sheep grazing in Australia and in
Europe (Crowley and CAS burn, 2013).
Lupins 183

FEEDING OF SEEDS AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS

Ruminants
Lupin seeds. Allan and Booth (2004) reported the apparent CP and OM
digestibilities of lupin grain as 91 and 50 percent, respectively. Higher
digestibilities (percent) of CP (80.8), ether extracts (57), crude fibre (45.5),
NDF (60.2) and ADF (57.8) were found for lupin compared with extracted
soybean meal (Pisarikova et al., 2008). Similarly, Tadele, Mekasha and Tegegne
(2014) reported CP digestibility as 81, 87 and 89 percent, respectively, for
roasted coarsely ground, roasted soaked, and roasted soaked coarsely ground
lupin grains in washera sheep fed natural grass hay as a basal diet.
Supplementation of ruminant diets with lupins has been shown to have many
positive effects in terms of growth and reproductive efficiency, comparable
with supplements of cereal grain (van Barneveld, 1999). Marley et al. (2008)
observed no significant differences in the milk yield or milk composition from
dairy cows fed concentrate diets containing either yellow lupins or soybean
meal during 5 and 12 weeks of lactation, indicating that yellow lupins could be
used as an alternative to soybean in dairy diets. Yilkal, Mekasha and Tegegne
(2014) observed that supplementation of 30 percent (DM basis) roasted (at
145 °C for 12 min), soaked (in running water for 5 days) and coarsely ground
lupin grain showed better nutrient utilization, response in live weight gains
and carcass parameters in washera sheep. Tefera et al. (2015) also observed that
supplementation with roasted white lupin grains significantly improved total
DMI, nutrient digestibility, average daily gain, feed conversion efficiency, and
carcass quality in sheep.

Lupin forages. White lupin is a valuable multipurpose crop which has the
ability to maintain soil fertility and serve as a source of feed (Yeheyis et al.,
2010). The crop is an excellent protein and energy source for ruminants. It can
be fed as whole plant silage, and even as hay. Azo et al. (2012) studied the use
of white lupin in organic production and lupin+cereal mixtures. They found
that bi-cropping lupin with cereals was successful and gave good forage yields.
The combination of Dieta white lupin and spring wheat or spring triticale was
most successful in yield and protein content. Also, harvest dates are as crucial
as seeding rates for lupin+cereal forage because time of harvest determines the
stage of maturity and therefore forage quality. Harvesting between 116–130
days is recommended by Azo et al. (2012). McKenzie and Spaner (1999) also
suggested that white lupin can be used as an alternative legume in oat-legume
green chop mixtures on mineral soils in Newfoundland, Canada.
Bhardwaj, Starner and Van Santen (2010) studied the potential to use white
lupin as a forage crop in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States of
America. From preliminary evaluation they found that white lupin forage has
an average of 18.7 percent protein (DM basis), and has potential as a forage
crop in this region and compared quite well with alfalfa. Sweet cultivars of
lupin are used for feeding livestock. These can be used as fresh fodder, dry
184 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

fodder, whole plant silage or hay (Jansen, 2006). Introduction of fodder lupin
varieties with alkaloid content of less than 0.01 percent minimizes the anti-
nutritional effect of alkaloids on palatability, consumption and feed utilization.

Pigs
The major constraint of whole lupin seeds as a source of protein in pig diets is
the low concentrations of lysine, methionine+cysteine, threonine, valine and
tryptophan when compared with other protein sources such as soybean meal,
canola meal, fish meal or meat and bone meals (Fernandez and Batterham,
1995; Wasilewko et al., 1999). Blue lupins are currently utilized as a valuable
protein source in pig diets.
In general, simple replacement of other protein sources, such as soybean
meal, by lupin seeds without adjustment for apparent ileal-digestible essential
amino acids showed an inferior response, mostly caused by the low lysine
and methionine+cysteine contents in lupins (McNiven and Castell, 1995).
However, if the lupin seed diets fed to pigs were formulated based on equal
amounts of apparent ileal digestible amino acids, performance response of
pigs fed lupin seed based diets were comparable or superior to the pigs fed
soybean-meal-based diets (Fernandez and Batterham, 1995; Gdala et al., 1996;
Bugnacka and Falkowski, 2001; Roth-Maier, Bohmer and Roth, 2004).
Research suggests that low alkaloid cultivars of blue or yellow lupins could
completely replace soybean meal in pig diets without adversely affecting
growth (Gdala et al., 1996; Mullan, van Barneveld and Cowling, 1997; Kim,
Pluske and Mullan, 2007), while white lupin was not suitable for inclusion
in diets (Gdala et al., 1996; King et al., 2000). Feeding white lupin to pigs
was associated with reduced feed intake, owing to extended retention time
in the stomach, and reduced growth rate, feed conversion efficiency and
nitrogen retention (Gdala et al., 1996; King et al., 2000). van Nevel et al.
(2000) also observed that inclusion of 15 percent white lupin in growing pig
diets significantly decreased feed intake and daily gain. Kim et al. (2010) also
observed that the Mandelup genotype of blue lupin can be used in grower/
finisher diets up to 35 percent without compromising growth, carcass
composition or meat quality of pigs.

Poultry
Broilers. Experimental work has shown that broiler chickens can tolerate up
to 25 percent of low-alkaloid lupin-seed meal without adversely affecting
growth, provided there are adequate supplements of lysine and methionine.
However, in practice, inclusion of either blue or white lupin in broiler chicken
diets should not exceed 10 percent. This is due to the incidence of wet-
sticky droppings that may be promoted by high levels of lupin non-starch
polysaccharides (Brenes et al., 1993; Edwards and van Barneveld, 1998).
Farrell, Pérez-Maldonado and Mannion (1999) recommended an optimum
inclusion rate of up to 10 percent sweet lupin seed in broilers diet.
Lupins 185

Roth-Maier and Paulick (2003) concluded that up to 20 percent yellow lupin

seed can be included in broiler diets as replacement for soybean meal without
impairing growth performance and feed-to-gain efficiency, when amino acid
supplementation is adjusted. Rubio, Brenes and Centeno (2003) studied the
effects of whole (not heat treated) or dehulled sweet (low in alkaloids) lupin
seeds (40 and 32 percent, respectively) in broiler diets. Body weight was lower
on feeding whole seed; however it was similar on feeding dehulled seeds.
Smulikowska et al. (2014) recommended that inclusion of sweet lupins at a
15 percent level can be accepted in older broiler diets provided with adequate
amino acid and fat supplementation.

Layers. Steenfeldt, González and Bach Knudsen (2003) reported that

incorporation of blue lupin up to 20 percent in broiler diets did not reduce
feed intake compared with a control; however, incorporation significantly
depressed weight gain and feed conversion efficiency. They also reported that
the use of an exogenous enzyme extract (lactase and galactanase) significantly
improved digestibility and weight gain. Gebremedhn et al. (2014) reported that
replacing processed (roasted at 145 ºC for 12 minutes) lupin seeds (at 25, 50, 75
and 100 percent) for soybean meal (by weight; isocaloric and isonitrogenous)
reduced cost of egg production and improved poultry egg productivity.
Williams, Ali and Sipsas (2005) observed that by using commercially available
pectinase (polygalacturonase), feed manufacturers should be able to use up to
20 percent whole lupins in layer diets. Inclusion of blue lupins in the diet of
laying hens at a rate of 15 percent DM resulted in no adverse effects on egg
production or hen health and could be used as part of a balanced ration with
inclusion of enzymes (lactase and galactanase) to reduce reliance on soybean
protein (Lee et al., 2016).

SUMMARY
White (Lupinus albus L.), yellow (Lupinus luteus L.) and blue lupin (Lupinus
angustifolius L.) are cultivated as crops. Currently, alkaloid-free variants of
blue lupin are cultivated in Australia – the world’s largest producer and
exporter of lupin seeds. Lupin seeds are relatively high in protein (32–40
percent, DM basis). However, due to low levels of methionine and lysine, their
inclusion in monogastric diets should be accompanied by supplementation
with other proteins or synthetic amino acids. Processed (roasted, soaked)
white lupin seeds can be used up to 30 percent in ruminant diet. Lupin forage
can be used as fresh fodder, dry fodder, whole plant silage or hay for livestock
feed. Blue lupin can be used up to 35 percent in the diet of pig. Inclusion
of blue lupins at 15 percent level is recommended in poultry diet. Andean
lupin (Lupinus mutabilis Sweet) is cultivated for human consumption in some
regions of South America, but unfortunately there is almost no published
information regarding its use as feed.
186 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

REFERENCES cited in chapter 12

Allan, G.L. & Booth, M.A. 2004. Effects of extrusion processing on digestibility of peas, lupins,
canola meal and soybean meal in silver perch Bidyanus bidyanus (Mitchell) diets. Aquaculture
Research, 35(10): 981–991. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2004.01114.x
Arslan, C. & Seker, E. 2002. Effects of processed white lupin seed (Lupinus albus L.) on growth
performance of Japanese Quail. Revue de Medecine Vétérinaire, 153(10): 643–646.
Azo, W.M., Lane, G.P.F., Davies, W.P. & Cannon, N.D. 2012. Bi-cropping white lupins
(Lupinus albus L.) with cereals for wholecrop forage in organic farming: The effect of seed
rate and harvest dates on crop yield and quality. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture,
28(2): 86–100. DOI: 10.1080/01448765.2012.671722
Bhardwaj, H.L. & Hamama, A.A. 2012. Cultivar and growing location effects on white lupin
immature green seeds. Journal of Agricultural Science, 4(2): 135–138.
DOI: 10.5539/jas.v4n2p135
Bhardwaj, H.L., Starner, D.E. & Van Santen, E. 2010. Preliminary evaluation of white lupin
(Lupinus albus L.) as a forage crop in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States of America.
Journal of Agricultural Science, 2(4): 13–17. DOI: 10.5539/jas.v2n4p13
Brebaum, S. & Boland, G.J. 1995. Sweet white lupin: A potential crop for Ontario. Canadian
Journal of Plant Science, 821–841.
Available at: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.4141/cjps95-140
Brenes, A. Marquardt, R.R., Guenter, W. & Rotter, B.A. 1993. Effect of enzyme supplementation
on the nutritional value of raw, autoclaved and dehulled lupins (Lupinus albus) in chicken
diets. Poultry Science, 72: 2281–2293. DOI: 10.3382/ps.0722281
Bugnacka, D. & Falkowski, J. 2001. The effect of dietary levels of yellow lupin seeds (Lupinus
luteus L.) on feed preferences and growth performance of young pigs. Journal of Animal and
Feed Sciences, 10(1): 133–142.
Cowley, R. & Casburn, G. 2013. Reducing the risk of lupinosis and the incidence of phomopsis.
NSW Department of Primary Industries. August 2013. Primefact 1308, first edition.
Dijkstra, D.S., Linnemann, A.R. & van Boekel, T.A. 2003. Towards sustainable production of
protein-rich foods: Appraisal of eight crops for Western Europe. PART II: Analysis of the
technological aspects of the production chain. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition,
43: 481–506. DOI: 10.1080/10408690390246332
Edwards, A.C. & van Barneveld, R.J. 1998. Livestock and Fish In: J.S. Gladstones, C Atkins
and J. Hamblin (eds). Lupins as Crop Plants: Biology, Production and Utilization. CAB
International, Wallingford, UK.
Erbas, M. 2010. The effects of different debittering methods on the production of lupin bean
snack from bitter Lupinus albus L. seeds. Journal of Food Quality, 33: 742–757.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-4557.2010.00347.x
Erbas, M., Certel, M. & Uslu, M.K. 2004. Some chemical properties of white lupin seeds
(Lupinus albus L.). Food Chemistry, 89: 341–345. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.02.040
Farrell, D.J., Pérez-Maldonado, R.A. & Mannion, P.F. 1999. Optimum inclusion of field peas,
faba beans, chick peas and sweet lupins in poultry diets. II. Broiler experiments. British
Poultry Science, 40(5): 674–80. DOI: 10.1080/00071669987070
Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ/FAO.
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
Lupins 187

Fernandez, J.A. & Batterham, E.S. 1995. The nutritive value of lupin-seed and dehulled lupin-
seed meals as protein sources for growing pigs as evaluated by different techniques. Animal
Feed Science and Technology, 53(3–4): 279–296. DOI: 10.1016/0377-8401(94)00743-S
Gdala, J., Jansman, A.J.M., van Leeuwen, P., Huisman, J., Verstegen, M.W.A. 1996. Lupins (L.
luteus, L. albus, L. angustifolius) as a protein source for young pigs. Animal Feed Science and
Technology, 62(2–4): 239–249. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8401(96)00992-3
Gebremedhn, B., Negassi, A., Mengistu, U. & Awet, E. 2014. Replacing soybean meal with
processed Lupin (Lupinus albus) meal as poultry layers feed. Livestock Research for Rural
Development, 26(11): Article #204.
Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd26/11/gerb26204.htm
GGI (Good Grains International Inc.). 2003. Uses of the sweet white lupin bean.
Available at: http://goodgrains.com/lupin_characteristics.htm
Gladstones, J.S., Atkins, C.A. & Hamblin, J. (Eds.). 1998. Lupins as crop plants: Biology,
production and utilization. CAB International, Wallingford, United Kingdom.
Jansen, P.C.M. 2006. Lupinus albus (L.) Record from Protabase. Brink, M. & Belay, G. (Editors).
PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa/Ressources végétales de l’Afrique tropicale),
Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Kim, J.C., Mullan, B.P., Nicholls, R.R. & Pluske, J.R. 2010. Effect of Australian sweet lupin
(Lupinus angustifolius L.) inclusion levels and enzyme supplementation on the performance,
carcass composition and meat quality of grower/finisher pigs. Animal Production Science,
51(1): 37–43. DOI: 10.1071/AN10087
Kim, J.C., Pluske, J.R. & Mullan, B.P. 2007. Lupins as a protein source in pig diets. CAB
Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 2(003).
King, R.H., Dunshea, F.R., Morrish, L., Eason, P.J., van Barneveld, R.J., Mullan, B.P. &
Campbell, R.G. 2000. The energy value of Lupinus angustifolius and Lupinus albus for
growing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 83(1): 17–30.
DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8401(99)00115-7
Kinghorn, A.D. & Balandrin, M.F. 1984. Quinolizidine alkaloids of the Leguminosae: structural
types, analysis, chemotaxonomy, and biological activities. Pp. 105–148, in: W.S. Pelletier (ed).
Alkaloids: chemical and biological perspectives. Wiley, New York, USA.
Kohajdova, Z., Karovičova, J. & Schmidt, S. 2011. Lupin composition and possible use in
bakery– A review. Institute of Biochemical and Food Technology. Czech Journal of Food
Sciences, 29(3): 203–211.
Lee, M.R.F., Parkinson, S., Fleming, H.R., Theobald, V.J., Leemans, D.K. & Burgess, T. 2016.
The potential of blue lupins as a protein source in the diets of laying hens. Veterinary and
Animal Science, 1: 29–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.vas.2016.11.004
Marley, C., Davies, D., Fisher, B., Fychan, R., Sanderson, T., Jones, R. & Abberton, M. 2008. Effects
of incorporating yellow lupins into concentrate diets compared with soya on milk production
and milk composition when offered to dairy cows. In: J.A. Palta and J.B. Berger (eds). Lupins for
Health and Wealth. Proceedings of the 12th International Lupin Conference, 14-18 Sept. 2008,
Fremantle, Western Australia. International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Martinez-Villaluenga, C., Zieliňski, H., Frias, J., Piskuła, M.K., Kozłowska, H. & Vidal-
Valverde, C. 2009. Antioxidant capacity and polyphenolic content of high-protein lupin
products. Food Chemistry, 112: 84–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.05.040
188 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Martini, A., Migliorini, P., Lorenzini, G., Lotti, C., Rosi, S., Squilloni, S., Riccio, F., Giorgetti,
A. & Casini, M. 2008. Production of grain legume crops alternative to soyabean and their use
in organic dairy production. 16th IFOAM Organic World Congress, Modena, Italy.
McKenzie, D.B. & Spaner, D. 1999. White lupin: An alternative to pea in oat-legume forage
mixtures grown in Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 43–47.
DOI: 10.4141/P97-122
McNiven, M.A. & Castell, A.G. 1995. Replacement of soybean meal with lupin seed (Lupinus
albus) in pig starter diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 52(3–4): 333–338.
DOI: 10.1016/0377-8401(94)00730-W
Mullan, B.P., van Barneveld, R.J. & Cowling, W.A. 1997. Yellow lupins (Lupinus luteus): A
new feed grain for the pig industry. In: P.D. Cranwell (ed). Manipulating Pig Production VI,
Australasian Pig Science Association, Werribee, Vic., Australia.
Nalle, C.L., Ravindran, V., & Ravindran, G. 2011. Nutritional value of white lupins (Lupinus
albus) for broilers: Apparent metabolisable energy, apparent ileal amino acid digestibility and
production performance. Animal, 6: 579–585. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111001686
Petterson, D.S. 2000. The use of lupins in feeding systems – Review. Asian-Australasian Journal
of Animal Sciences, 13(6): 861–882. DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2000.861
Pisarikova, B., Zraly, Z., Bunka, F. & Trckova, M. 2008. Nutritional value of white lupine
cultivar Butan in diets for fattening pigs. Veterinarni Medicina, 53(3): 124–134.
Available at: http://www.vri.cz/docs/vetmed/53-3-124.pdf
Roth-Maier, D.A. & Paulicks, B.R. 2003. Feeding and nutritional value of sweet blue and
yellow lupin seed (Lupinus angustifolius L., Lupinus luteus L.) for broiler chicks. Archiv für
Geflügelkunde, 67(4): 175–178.
Roth-Maier, D.A., Bohmer, B.M. & Roth, F.X. 2004. Effects of feeding canola meal and sweet
lupin (L. luteus, L. angustifolius) in amino acid balanced diets on growth performance and
carcass characteristics of growing-finishing pigs. Animal Research, 53(1): 21–34.
Rubio, L.A., Brenes, A. & Centeno, C. 2003. Effects of feeding growing broiler chickens
with practical diets containing sweet lupin (Lupinus angustifolius) seed meal. British Poultry
Science, 44(3): 391–397. DOI: 10.1080/0007166031000085553
Smulikowska, S., Konieczka, P., Czerwinski, J., Mieczkowska, A. & Jankowiak, J. 2014.
Feeding broiler chickens with practical diets containing lupin seeds (L. angustifolius or L.
luteus): effects of incorporation level and mannanase supplementation on growth performance,
digesta viscosity, microbial fermentation and gut morphology. Journal of Animal and Feed
Sciences, 23: 64–72. DOI: 10.22358/jafs/65718/2014
Steenfeldt, S., González, E., & Bach Knudsen, K.E. 2003. Effects of inclusion with blue
lupins (Lupinus angustifolius) in broiler diets and enzyme supplementation on production
performance, digestibility and dietary AME content. Animal Feed Science and Technology,
110: 185–200. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8401(03)00218-9
Tadele, Y., Mekasha, Y. & Tegegne, F. 2014. Supplementation with different forms of processed
lupin (Lupinus albus) grain in hay based feeding of Washera sheep: Effect on feed Intake,
digestibility, body weight and carcass parameters. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and
Healthcare, 4(27): 213–231.
Tefera, G., Tegegne, F., Mekuriaw, Y., Melaku, S. & Tsunekaw, A. 2015. Effects of different
forms of white lupin (Lupinus albus) grain supplementation on feed intake, digestibility,
Lupins 189

growth performance and carcass characteristics of Washera sheep fed Rhodes grass (Chloris
gayana) hay-based diets. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 47(8): 1581–1590.
DOI: 10.1007/s11250-015-0901-9
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2014. Plant guide. White lupine.
Available at: https://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg_lual22.pdf
van Barneveld, R.J. 1999. Understanding the nutritional chemistry of lupin (Lupinus spp.) seed
to improve livestock production efficiency. Nutrition Research Reviews, 12: 203–230.
DOI: 10.1079/095442299108728938
Van Nevel, C., Seynaeve, M., Van De Voorde, G., De Smet, S., Van Driessche, E. & De Wilde,
R. 2000. Effects of increasing amounts of Lupinus albus seeds without or with whole egg
powder in the diet of growing pigs on performance. Animal Feed Science and Technology,
83(2): 89–101. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8401(99)00125-X
Wasilewko, J., Gdala, J., Buraczewska, L. & Han, I.K. 1999. Assessment of ileal digestibility
of lupin amino acids and their use in formulating diets for pigs. Journal of Animal and Feed
Sciences, 8: 13–26.
White, C.L., Staines, V.E. & Staines, M.V.H. 2007. A review of the nutritional value of lupines
for dairy cows. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 58(3): 185–202.
DOI: 10.1071/AR06109
Williams, I., Ali, A. & Sipsas, S. 2005. Lupins for poultry. Mechanical and enzymatic
improvement of lupins for broiler and layers. A report for the Rural Industries Research and
Development Corporation, Australian Government.
Wink, M. 1992. The role of quinolizidine alkaloids in plant-insect interactions. Pp. 133–169, in:
E.A. Bernays (ed.) Insect-plants interactions. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA.
Wink, M. 1983. Wounding-induced increase of quinolizidine alkaloids accumulation in lupin
leaves. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung, 38c: 905–909.
Wink, M. 1988. Plant breeding: importance of plant secondary metabolites for protection against
pathogens and herbivores. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 75(2): 225–233.
DOI: 10.1007/BF00303957
Wink, M. 1993a. Quinolizidine alkaloids. Pp. 197–239, in: P.G. Waterman (ed.) Methods in plant
biochemistry. Academic Press, London, UK.
Wink, M. 1993b. Allelochemical properties and the raison d’être of alkaloids. In G. Cordell (ed.)
The Alkaloids. Academic Press, vol. 43, pp 1–118.
Wink, M., Meissner, C. & Witte, L. 1995. Pattern of quinolizidine alkaloid in 56 species of the
genus Lupinus. Phytochemistry, 38: 139–153. DOI: 10.1016/0031-9422(95)91890-D
Yeheyis, L., Kijora, C., Melaku, S., Girma, A. & Peters, K.J. 2010. White lupin (Lupinus
albus L.), the neglected multipurpose crop: Its production and utilization in the mixed crop-
livestock farming system of Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 22: Article
#74. Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/4/yehe22074.htm
 191

Chapter 13
A synthesis
Pulse-based food is an important source of dietary protein and essential
minerals, particularly for the vegetarian population in developing and
developed countries. Pulses are of particular importance for food security –
and more importantly nutrition security – particularly in regions where, for
cultural reasons, the major sources of protein for humans are plants. Pulses
are a relatively inexpensive source of protein when compared with most other
protein sources. In addition to enhancing food and nutrition security directly,
pulse crops also provide valuable by-products for animal feeding, which do
not compete with human food, and thus indirectly contribute to food security.
Pulse crops are becoming a cornerstone of sustainable agriculture due to
their ability to enhance the nitrogen cycling of farming systems. In multiple
cropping systems, besides enhancing soil fertility, pulses are able to improve
yields and contribute to making a more rational use of nitrogen fertilizers
while mitigating climate change (Calles, 2016). Several pulses are also resilient
to adverse climate such as drought and heat, and grow in dryland regions of
the world. This makes them important food crops that adapt easily to the
rising temperatures, increasingly frequent droughts and other vagaries under
the changing climate of the planet.
Pulses make a positive contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions
(ICRISAT, 2016). It is also particularly remarkable that pulses have a very low
water footprint compared with other protein sources, and can be grown in
very poor soils where other crops cannot be cultivated (Nemecek et al., 2008).
Furthermore, pulses play an important role in climate change adaptation, since
they have a broad genetic diversity from which climate-resilient varieties can
be selected and/or bred. Thus, pulses are considered as smart food crops that
can play a major role in addressing global food security and environmental
challenges, as well as contribute to healthy diets.
This document outlines the various pulse crops and their by-products, their
origin and regional distribution, description of plants along with their climatic
conditions for cultivation, chemical composition, anti-nutritional factors, level
and effect of their feeding in cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and poultry.
Globally, pulse production is estimated to have been about 76 million tonne
in 2012 (FAOSTAT, 2013), which results in the availability of a large quantity
of their by-products for use as animal feed. Pulses and their by-products are
important for animal nutrition because they are excellent sources of amino
acids, although content of some essential amino acid such as methionine is
lower in pulses when compared with soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], fish
meal and the FAO reference protein for 2–5-year-old children (Makkar et al.,
2014; Table 13.1). Carbohydrate levels are also high, which supply energy to
 192

Table 13.1. Amino acids composition of commonly available pulses versus soybeans, fish meal and the FAO reference protein (g/16 g N)
Amino acids African yam
Common bean Lima bean Mung bean Rice bean Broad bean Bambara bean Pea
(% protein) bean

Alanine 3.0–5.3 0.5–5.6 3.1–3.7 3.9–6.0 3.4–4.5 3.9–4.6 4.4 4.0–5.1

Arginine 4.9–9.2 2.4–6.9 3.4–7.3 4.1–7.5 7.7–10.5 5.1–7.3 6.8 7.3–9.7
Aspartic acid 8.0–14.7 2.8–12.4 8.1–10.9 10.3–14.4 9.1–11.6 8.8–11.5 11.0 10.8–12.3
Cystine 1.0–1.2 1.0–1.1 0.7–1.2 0.1–1.5 1.0–1.5 2.0–2.6 1.5 1.2–1.7
Glutamic acid 9.7–18.8 6.3–16.9 10.8–15.6 13.2–20.0 13.0–18.2 11.8–16.4 16.9 15.4–18.7
Glycine 3.1–5.6 4.2–5.5 1.8–3.2 3.2–5.2 3.5–4.6 4.0–4.5 3.7 4.0–4.7
Histidine 2.1–3.4 2.1–3.2 2.4–2.9 2.2–3.8 2.2–3.0 4.0–5.3 3.1 2.3–2.7
Isoleucine 2.8–5.9 2.3–5.6 3.5–4.4 2.1–5.8 3.4–4.5 2.6–4.5 4.1 3.7–4.6
Leucine 5.5–10.0 5.8–9.0 5.9–8.2 4.2–9.5 6.3–7.8 7.0–7.8 7.6 6.5–7.5
Lysine 4.0–8.4 2.9–7.7 5.8–8.2 5.3–8.7 5.4–6.8 7.4–9.3 6.7 6.7–7.8
Methionine 0.3–1.7 1.3–1.7 0.7–1.9 0.5–1.5 0.6–1.0 1.2–1.4 1.3 0.8–1.2
Phenylalanine 3.6–7.1 2.8–6.7 3.1–6.7 4.7–7.7 3.5–4.5 4.6–5.8 5.5 4.4–5.0
Proline 2.1–5.1 4.6–5.5 1.1–5.4 2.9–4.7 4.1–4.8 3.7–4.5
Serine 4.4–7.2 1.6–7.2 2.9–4.5 2.7–5.4 3.6–5.4 5.0–6.4 4.7 4.3–5.1
Threonine 3.2–5.9 4.3–4.9 2.0–3.6 3.1–5.4 2.8–4.0 3.4–4.2 3.5 3.5–4.2
Tryptophan 1.1–1.7 1.0–1.1 0.9–1.8 0.8–1.1 0.7–1.0 1.2 0.8–1.0
Tyrosine 2.7–4.2 3.4–3.8 1.8–2.8 0.8–4.7 2.2–3.3 3.8–4.5 3.4 2.6–3.6
Valine 3.4–6.7 2.3–5.9 3.6–5.6 3.3–5.9 3.7–5.1 3.8–5.3 4.9 4.2–5.2
Pulses and their by-products as animal feed
 A synthesis

Amino acids Lentil Lupins (blue) Soybeans Fish meal *Reference protein
Chickpea Cowpea Pigeon pea
(% protein)

Alanine 3.2–4.3 3.4–5.1 3.6–6.3 2.4–4.3 3.1–3.7 3.8–4.6 5.7–6.4

Arginine 7.1–12.3 5.0–8.7 3.2–6.8 3.9–8.8 9.5–12.3 6.6–7.9 4.2–6.6
Aspartic acid 9.0–11.9 9.2–12.7 7.6–11.0 9.9–11.5 9.2–11.1 10.1–11.9 7.9–9.5
Cystine 0.6–1.8 0.6–1.4 1.1–2.2 1.0–1.5 1.2–1.8 1.3–1.9 0.7–0.9
Glutamic acid 12.7–20.2 14.1–18.7 15.9–24.7 14.7–16.3 20.8–25.0 16.9–18.7 11.8–15.0
Glycine 3.1–4.3 3.1–4.8 3.6–4.0 3.8–4.4 3.9–4.4 4.0–4.5 4.3–7.7
Histidine 2.1–3.1 2.4–4.1 2.2–3.8 1.3–3.8 2.4–2.9 2.3–3.1 1.6–3.5 1.9
Isoleucine 2.6–4.8 2.8–5.2 3.1–4.1 3.4–6.3 3.9–4.4 4.2–4.8 3.2–5.0 2.8
Leucine 5.9–7.8 5.8–11.3 5.5–8.6 6.8–10.9 6.2–7.8 7.1–7.9 5.5–8.1 6.6
Lysine 5.4–7.7 5.2–7.1 5.6–7.8 4.3–8.0 4.5–5.1 5.7–6.7 7.0–8.1 5.8
Methionine 0.7–1.6 0.9–1.6 0.3–1.5 0.7–1.1 0.5–0.8 1.2–1.7 2.3–3.5 2.5a
Phenylalanine 4.4–6.1 4.4–6.4 7.7–10.4 4.3–6.3 3.1–5.4 4.7–5.3 2.8–4.3 6.3b
Proline 3.7–4.5 3.8–5.7 3.5–5.4 2.6–4.0 3.7–4.6 4.5–5.6 3.2–4.3
Serine 4.2–5.6 3.8–5.6 4.2–4.8 2.9–5.1 4.8–5.4 4.5–5.4 3.6–4.5
Threonine 3.0–4.0 3.0–5.3 2.6–3.9 2.5–4.5 3.1–3.6 3.6–4.4 3.1–4.6 3.4
Tryptophan 0.7–1.2 0.9–1.3 0.3–0.9 0.5–1.2 0.8–1.0 1.2–1.4 0.8–1.2 1.1
Tyrosine 1.5–3.2 2.6–3.6 0.4–3.8 2.5–3.2 3.3–4.0 3.3–3.8 2.3–3.7
Valine 2.8–4.9 3.4–5.5 2.9–5.7 4.0–5.4 3.4–4.3 4.4–5.2 3.9–5.7 3.5
Notes: * FAO reference protein for 2–5-year-old children (cited from Makkar et al., 2014).
a Methionine plus cystine.

b Phenylalanine plus tyrosine.

Source: Feedipedia. 2016. Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/

193
194 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

animals. Seeds are rich in protein (15–37 percent, DM basis) depending upon
the crop species. The average fat and fibre contents (DM basis) ranges from
0.6 to 7.0 percent and 3 to 17 percent, respectively. Fresh aerial parts of most
pulse crops contains about 10 to 36 percent protein (DM basis) and 1 to 5
percent fat (DM basis), depending upon the species. Pulse by-products such
as straw (CP: 3–14 percent; DM basis) and hay (CP: 9–23 percent; DM basis)
have higher levels of protein than cereal by-products (Table 13.2). Various
processing by-products such as korma (50–55 percent; DM basis), meal (40–45
percent; DM basis) and chuni (19–23 percent; DM basis) also act as potential
sources of protein for ruminant and monogastric animals. By-products of
pulses in general have higher dry matter digestibility and metabolizable energy,
and lower fibre contents than cereals. This is mainly due to their greater
proportion of highly digestible cell contents. Thus, complementing animal
feed with improved varieties of pulses and their by-products significantly
improves animal nutrition, which in turn supports food security.
Pulses also contain various anti-nutritional factors such as trypsin and
chymotrypsin inhibitors, lectins, saponins, tannins, oxalate, polyphenols,
phytic acid, lathyrogens, anti-histamines and allergens (Table 13.3). The
presence of anti-nutritional factors in pulses (mainly in raw seeds) affects their
direct use in animals, particularly in monogastric animals. However, the effects
of these factors disappear or decrease when pulses are properly processed.
Among the processing methods that have been used are: germination,
fermentation, peeling, soaking, cooking, treating with various chemicals,
enzymes addition, roasting and frying. The heat treatment applied to remove
anti-nutritious factors should be monitored carefully because it can lead to a
decrease in essential amino acids and protein digestibility.
Nutritionally, pulses and their by-products fit very well into animal diets,
although individual pulses have different applications for specific livestock
groups. Pulses are a high quality source of protein and energy for all forms of
livestock, combining with high levels of palatability and digestibility. Pulses
have become an increasingly popular feed source in recent years with an
estimated 10 to 20 percent of the diet comprising various pulses. Peas (Pisum
sativum L.) are the most widely used pulse in the intensive livestock industries
although lupins (Lupinus L. spp.) are widely recognized as a superior feed
source for ruminants. In semi-intensive or extensive livestock systems typical
of developing countries, pulse by-products such as korma, meal, chuni of
mung bean [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek], mungo bean [Vigna mungo (L.)
Hepper], moth bean [Vigna aconitifolia (Jacq.) Maréchal] and guar bean
[Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.] are more commonly used as animal feed
supplements. Pulse crop residues such as straw, hay, pod, and husk also form
the basal diet for ruminants, mainly in developing countries.
Maximum inclusion levels of pulses and their by-products in the diet vary
between 5 and 50 percent, and usage varies with livestock species. Some of
the major recommendations on the levels of incorporation of pulses and their
A synthesis 195

by-products in the diets of cattle, sheep, goats, pig and poultry are given
below:

• Raw common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) can be incorporated up to

20 percent in the ration of cattle. Heat-treated seeds can replace up to
50 percent soybean meal protein in poultry diet. Straw has high DM
digestibility (>68 percent) and high metabolizable energy (>7 MJ/kg DM),
and can be fed to livestock.

• Raw seeds of lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus L.) are not recommended for use
as livestock feed, as they may cause hydrogen cyanide (HCN) poisoning.
However, soaking and cooking of raw seeds remove most of the HCN, and
the treated seeds can be incorporated up to 10 percent in broiler diet. Lima
bean silage can be fed to cattle up to 80 percent of the total forage DMI.

• By-products of mung bean such as mung bean chuni are a good source of
protein (19 percent, DM basis), and can be included up to 50 percent in
cattle diets. Chuni can be included up to 7.5 and 15 percent in nursery and
finisher pig diets, respectively. Mung beans can be used up to 30 percent in
layer poultry diets, provided that the diet is properly balanced with amino
acids. Mung bean hulls are suitable for inclusion in the diets of ruminants. It
is advisable to use a maximum 5 percent level of mung bean hulls in broiler
diets. Fresh mung bean forage has a moderate (13 percent, DM basis) to
high (21 percent, DM basis) protein content, and can be incorporated up to
100 percent in the ration of sheep, with no adverse effect.

• Mungo bean chuni is a potential feed resource and it is available in large

quantities in India and other South Asian countries. It is reported that
mungo bean chuni is the best in terms of available protein when compared
with chunies of mung bean, chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) or pigeon pea
[Cajanus cajan (L.) Huth]. Mungo bean chuni can be included up to 40
percent of concentrates used for feeding cattle. The inclusion of mungo bean
chuni up to 15 percent level is recommended for pig diets. Fresh mungo
bean forage is rich in protein (18–19 percent, DM basis) and fibre content
is reasonably low (25–27 percent, DM basis). Feeding mungo bean forage
(50 or 100 percent of roughage) improves feed intake, fibre digestibility and
milk production in lactating cows.

• Rice bean [Vigna umbellata (Thunb.) Ohwi & H. Ohashi] can replace 50
percent of concentrates used in the ration of calves and sheep. Raw rice bean
should not be fed to poultry; however, roasted beans can be included up to
20 percent in the diet. Rice bean hay is generally used as a protein source
(16 percent, DM basis) to supplement poor quality roughage-based diets in
ruminants. Hay can be supplemented up to 15 percent of diet DM in goats.
196 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Table 13.2 Protein (%, DM basis) and organic matter digestibility (%, ruminants) of commonly
available pulses and pulse by-products versus cereals and cereal by-products
Pulses and their by-products Cereals and their by-products

Parameter Protein Digestibility Parameter Protein Digestibility

Species

Common bean 22–27 92 Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) 9–19 86–94

Lima bean 19–28 84 Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) 8–16 41–86
Mung bean 19–29 92 Maize (Zea mays L.) 8–11 88
Pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.)
Mungo bean 21–27 92 8–17 88
R. Br.]
Rice bean 18–25 60 Oat (Avena sativa L.) 8–15 68–82
Moth bean 27 92 Rice, polished (Oryza sativa L.) 8–13 92
Broad bean 25–34 87–96 Rough rice, paddy rice 6–12 72
Hyacinth bean 23–29 78 Rice, brown 7–14 89
Jack bean 20–37 91 Rye (Secale cereale L.) 8–13 89
Winged bean 39 Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] 8–14 79–91
Guar bean 28 92 Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) 14–17
Velvet bean 18–37 92 Fonio [Digitaria exilis (Kippist) Stapf] 7–11 87
African yam bean 22–26 Triticale (×Triticosecale) 9–16 88
Bambara bean 17–23 91
Pea 19–29 91–96
Chickpea (desi type) 18–27 90
Chickpea (kabuli type) 19–26 84–92
Cowpea 18–30 92
Pigeon pea 18–28 91
Lentil 25–30 92
Common vetch 15–36 90–92
Lupin (yellow) 34–48 89
Lupin (blue) 30–38 89
Lupin (white) 34–45 90
Seeds/grains (average) 15–48 78–96 6–19 41–94
Bran/chuni
Mung bean chuni 19 Wheat bran 14–21 66–81
Mungo bean chuni 21 Maize bran 9–18 75
Guar bean chuni 20 Pear millet bran 10–16 83
Chickpea chuni 12–18 Oat bran 17–22 86
Lentil bran 15–26 Rye bran 15–18 81
Rice bran 4–18 46–94
Rice bran, defatted 5–20 42–82
Bran/chuni (average) 12–26 4–22 42–94
Fodder (fresh)
Lima bean fodder 19 56 Wheat fodder 7–24 64–85
Mung bean fodder 13–21 73 Barley fodder 6–19 61–81
Mungo bean fodder 19 68 Maize fodder 3–13 56–69
Rice bean fodder 14–32 64 Pear millet fodder 7–17 68–75
Moth bean fodder 15 76 Oat fodder 6–26 54–74
Broad bean fodder 14–21 74–74 Rice fodder 3–19 66
Hyacinth bean fodder 12–24 67 Rye fodder 7–21 70–81
Jack bean fodder 15–25 60 Sorghum fodder 2–16 56–82
Guar bean fodder 16 73 Triticale fodder 5–28 68
Velvet bean fodder 10–26 68–70
African yam bean
23 64
fodder
A synthesis 197

Pulses and their by-products Cereals and their by-products

Parameter Protein Digestibility Parameter Protein Digestibility

Species
Pea fodder 18
Cowpea fodder 13–24 71
Pigeon pea fodder 10–27 65
Common vetch fodder 12–36 60–80
Lupin (white) fodder 18–28 72–82
Fodder, fresh
10–36 56–82 2–28 56–85
(average)
Straw
Common bean straw 5–11 48–60 Wheat straw 3–6 39–55
Mung bean straw 9–12 56–67 Barley straw 2–6 43–50
Mungo bean straw 9–17 62 Pear millet straw 3–7 38–53
Rice bean straw 14 39 Oat straw 2–6 39–58
Broad bean straw 5–11 37–55 Rice straw 2–7 46–56
Jack bean straw 27 Rye straw 2–7 48
Guar bean straw 7–11 59 Sorghum straw 2–8 41–70
Bambara bean straw 8 Fonio straw 5
Pea straw 8 Triticale straw 2–4 50
Chickpea straw 4–9 43–61
Lentil straw 6–9 47–55
Common vetch straw 6–8 50–57
Lupin (white) straw 6 46
Lupin (yellow) straw 7 49
Straw (average) 4–17 37–67 2–8 38–70
Hay
Rice bean hay 13–18 51 Wheat hay 2–10 42–65
Moth bean hay 9–17 62 Barley hay 4–13 54–68
Hyacinth bean hay 12–20 44–65 Pear millet hay 7–11 53–60
Velvet bean hay 15 61 Oat hay 5–15 53–81
Bambara bean hay 14 Rice hay 8 62
Cowpea hay 10–23 60 Sorghum hay 4–14 52–70
Pigeon pea hay 12–17 60
Common vetch hay 17–22 64–73
Hay (average) 9–23 44–73 2–15 42–70
Pods/ husks
Mungo bean pods 9 85 Pearl millet husks 5 59
Moth bean pods 10 88 Oat hulls 2–8 35
Velvet bean pods 21 89 Rice hulls 2–7 29
Pigeon pea pods 20 83
Pods (average) 9–21 83–89 2–8 29–35
Silage
Mungo bean silage 14 77 Barley silage 7–12 64–71
Pea pod silage 6–24 72 Maize silage 5–12
Oat silage 7–12 57–71
Sorghum silage 4–8 63–70
Silage (average) 6–24 72–77 4–12 57–71
Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ/FAO.
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
198 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

Table 13.3 Anti-nutritional factors present in different pulses and their by-products
Pulses Anti-nutritional factors

Common beans Trypsin, chymotrypsin, and α-amylase enzyme inhibitors;

(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) phytic acid, lectin, saponins and flatulence factors.
Cyanogenic glucosides (linamarin and phaseolunatin) and
Lima bean
linamarase, lectin and trypsin inhibitors; oxalate, saponins,
(Phaseolus lunatus L.)
phytic acid and tannins.
Mung bean
Trypsin inhibitors, chymotrypsin inhibitor, tannins and lectins.
[Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek]
Mungo bean
Trypsin inhibitors and condensed tannins.
[Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper]
Rice bean
Phytic acid, polyphenol, tannins and trypsin inhibitors.
[Vigna umbellata (Thunb.) Ohwi & H. Ohashi]
Moth bean
Phytic acid, saponin and trypsin inhibitors.
[Vigna aconitifolia (Jacq.) Maréchal]
*Broad bean
Tannins and glycosides (vicin and convicin).
(Vicia faba L.)
Hyacinth bean
Tannins, phytate and trypsin inhibitors.
[Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet]
Jack bean
Concanavalin A, canavanine and canatoxin.
[Canavalia ensiformis (L.) DC.]
Winged bean Trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors; amylase inhibitors,
[Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (L.) DC.] phytohaemagglutinins, cyanogenic glycosides and saponins.
Guar bean Trypsin inhibitors, saponin, haemagglutinins, hydrocyanic acid
[Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.] and polyphenols.
L-dopa (L-3, 4-dihydroxyphenylalanine), total free phenolics,
tannins, haemagglutinin, trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors,
Velvet bean dimethyltryptamine, anti-vitamins, protease inhibitors, phytic
[Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC.] acid, flatulence factors, saponins, and hydrogen cyanide and
dimethyltryptamine. alkaloids such as mucunain, prurienine
and serotonin.
African yam bean Tannins, trypsin inhibitors, hydrogen cyanide, saponins, phytic
[Sphenostylis stenocarpa (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) acid, alpha-galactosides, lectin, alpha-amylase inhibitors,
Harms] oxalate, and beta-galactosides.
Bambara bean
Trypsin inhibitors, phytates and tannins.
[Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.]
Pea
Trypsin inhibitors, tannins and lectins.
(Pisum sativum L.)
Chickpea
Trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors.
(Cicer arietinum L.)
Cowpea
Lectins, trypsin inhibitors and tannins.
[Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]
Pigeon pea Haemagglutinins, trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors,
[Cajanus cajan (L.) Huth] cyanoglucosides, alkaloids and tannins.
Lentil
Protease inhibitors, lectins, phytic acid, saponins and tannins.
(Lens culinaris Medik.)
*Common vetch Cyanogenic amino acids, cyanogenic glycosides and
(Vicia sativa L.) neurotoxin (γ-glutamyl-β-cyanoalanine).
Non-starch polysaccharides, oligosaccharides, trypsin
*Lupins
inhibitors, chymotrypsin inhibitors, tannins, saponins, phytin
(Lupinus L. spp.)
and alkaloids.
Note: All anti-nutritional factors, except for those species marked with an asterisk, can be inactivated by heat treatment.
For those species marked with an asterisk, treatments are available to remove/inactivate them. Currently, improved
varieties with zero/low anti-nutritional factors are also available for several of the pulse crops.
A synthesis 199

• Improved cultivars of broad bean (Vicia faba L.) with low tannins,
glycosides and trypsin inhibitor contents are preferred for livestock feeding.
Seeds are a valuable source of protein (25–33 percent, DM basis) and energy
(18.7 MJ/kg DM), and can be used up to 30 percent in the ration of dairy
cows. In sheep, broad beans can be included up to 60 percent of the diet.
Although broad beans are a good source of protein, they are low in the
sulphur-containing amino acids such as methionine and cysteine, which
limit their inclusion in high-density diets of monogastrics. Zero-tannin
broad beans can be included up to 30 percent in growing and finishing pig
diets. The maximum inclusion level of broad bean should not be more than
10 percent in sow diet. Processed or glycosides-free genotypes of broad
beans can be included up to 20 percent in broiler and layer poultry diets.
Broad bean hulls can be used in the diets of ruminants. Good quality silage
can be also made from broad bean plants.

• Hyacinth bean [Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet] contains high protein (23–28
percent, DM basis) and low fibre (8–10 percent, DM basis); however,
presence of anti-nutritional factors (tannins, phytate, and trypsin inhibitors)
limits its use in monogastric diets. Raw and processed (boiling, toasting,
steam pelleting) seeds can be included at up to 10 and 30 percent, respectively,
in pig diets. A maximum 5 percent of unprocessed seeds is recommended for
inclusion in poultry diets. Its fodder is one of the most palatable legumes
for animals and a valuable source of protein (18 percent, DM basis). Good
quality hay and silage can be prepared from hyacinth fodder.

• Jack bean [Canavalia ensiformis (L.) DC.] is a good source of protein,

carbohydrate and minerals; however, the presence of various anti-nutritional
factors (concanavalin A, canavanine, and canatoxin) limits its use in ruminant
and monogastric diets. Processed seeds (alkali-treated, autoclaved or extruded)
of jack bean can be included up to 15 percent in pig diets. Raw seeds are
not recommended for poultry diets; however, toasted/boiled seeds can be
incorporated up to 10 percent in broiler and layer diets. Fresh forage is not
palatable; however, dried forage can be used in the diet of ruminant animals.

• Because of high protein (28 percent, DM basis) and organic matter

digestibility (92 percent, in ruminant), guar bean seeds can efficiently
replace other protein meals in the ration of livestock animals. Guar bean
meal (40–45 percent, DM basis) and guar bean korma (50–55 percent, DM
basis) are protein rich by-products of the guar bean gum industry, used in
monogastric and ruminant diets. Autoclaving of guar bean meal improves its
inclusion level. Raw guar bean meal can constitute up to 25 percent of cattle
rations; whereas, heat treated guar bean meal can be used as the sole protein
component of cattle diet. A maximum of 5 percent of raw guar bean meal can
be included in pig diets. Raw and heat treated guar bean meal can be included
200 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

up to 2.5 and 5 percent levels, respectively in poultry diet. Guar bean straw
can be incorporated up to 70 percent in the maintenance ration of sheep.

• The use of velvet bean [Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC.] seeds in diets of pig
and poultry is limited, due to the presence of anti-nutritional factors. The
processing of seeds, such as by cracking, soaking in water and boiling,
allows replacing soybean meal (by up to 40 percent) in the diets of pig.
Processed seeds (soaking, boiling, drying) can be used up to 20 percent in
broiler diets; but are not recommended for layer diets. Velvet bean forage
can be supplemented at 2 kg DM/head/day in dairy cow rations. Maximum
inclusion level for velvet bean hay was recommended as up to 2.5 percent
of body weight in sheep and goat diets.

• African yam bean [Sphenostylis stenocarpa (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) Harms]

seeds are rich in protein (22–25 percent, DM basis), with high levels of
lysine (9 percent of protein) and methionine (2 percent of protein). The
amino acid levels in African yam bean seeds are higher than in pigeon pea,
cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] or Bambara bean [Vigna subterranea
(L.) Verdc.]. Seeds can be included up to 20 percent in the diets of broilers.

• Bambara bean has long been used as an alternative, inexpensive source of

protein and energy in livestock diets, mainly in African countries. Bambara
bean seeds can be included up to 10 percent in the diet of pigs. Heat
processed seeds can be included up to 45 percent in broiler diets. The raw
Bambara bean waste (offal) can be included up to 5 and 20 percent levels in
layer and broiler diets, respectively.

• Peas can be included at up to 50 percent in the diet of dairy calves, and it

can serve as a sole protein source for dairy heifers. Peas can be included up
to 25 percent in dairy cattle, and 30 percent in steer diets. Sheep and goat
diets may contain up to 45 and 15 percent of peas, respectively. Maximum
recommended level for extruded seeds in pig starter diet is 20 percent, as
against 10 percent for raw seeds. If the diet is balanced with synthetic amino
acids, peas can be included up to 30 percent in broiler and layer diets.

• Chickpeas, both desi and kabuli types, are also a good source of protein (18–
26 percent, DM basis). Fibre content is lower in kabuli chickpea types (3–5
percent, DM basis) than in desi types (9–13 percent, DM basis). Chickpea
can be used up to 50 percent of the concentrate in large and small ruminant
diets. Extruded chickpeas can be included up to 30 percent in the diets of
growing and finishing pigs. The recommendation is to limit raw chickpeas
up to 5–10 percent in starter diets, and up to 10–15 percent in grower
and finisher pig diets. Heat processed chickpeas can be included up to 20
percent in broiler and layer diets. Chickpea straw is palatable, with higher
A synthesis 201

DMD (10–42 percent higher) than cereal straws, indicating its potential as
an alternative forage in ruminant diets. Chickpea bran (chuni) is a good
source of protein (13–19 percent, DM basis) for ruminants.

• Raw cowpea seed and its by-products (seed waste, hulls) can be used in the
diets of small and large ruminants; however, they cannot be recommended
for use in pigs and poultry diets. Heat-treated seeds can be included up to
20 percent in broiler diets. Cowpea hulls (which results from dehulling of
seeds for food) are low-cost feedstuffs for poultry, and can be included up
to 15 percent in starter and finisher diets. Cowpea forage has high protein
contents (14–24 percent, DM basis) and organic matter digestibility (>60
percent in ruminants). Cowpea hay can be added up to 30 percent in the diet
of small and large ruminants.

• Pigeon pea seeds are a good source of protein (23 percent, DM basis) and
can be incorporated up to 20 percent (DM basis) in the diet of lactating
cows. Raw or processed seeds can be included up to 30 percent in goat diets.
Raw pigeon pea seeds can be included up to 20 percent in growing pig diets.
Raw pigeon pea seeds can be included up to 10 percent; whereas, processed
(toasted) seeds can be included up to 20 percent in broiler and layer diets.
Pigeon pea provides excellent forage for livestock. It is palatable and rich in
protein (18 percent, DM basis).

• Lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) seeds and by-products (screenings and bran)
can be incorporated in ruminant feeding. Inclusion rate of lentil seeds
should not exceed 10 percent in growing-finishing pig diets. The seeds can
be included up to 20 percent in broiler rations, but are not recommended in
layer rations. Amino acid (for example sulphur containing amino acids such
as methionine and cysteine) supplementation is recommended when lentil
seeds are used in pig and poultry diets. Lentil straw can also be used in diets
for small and large ruminants.

• Feeding of common vetch (Vicia faba L.) seeds can be recommended up

to 3 kg/day for dairy cattle. Maximum safe levels for common vetch seeds
could be up to 20 percent for growing pigs and 10 percent for piglets. Raw
and processed (soaking and cooking) seeds can be included up to 10 and 20
percent, respectively, in broiler diet. Processed seeds may safely be used up
to a 25 percent level in laying hens. Common vetch provides palatable forage,
having about 24 percent protein (DM basis). Common vetch straw contains
about 6 percent protein (DM basis), and its organic matter disgestibility is 53
percent. Common vetch hay is a valuable forage for small and large ruminants.

• Processed (roasted, soaked) white lupin (Lupinus albus L.) seeds can be
used up to 30 percent in ruminant diets. Blue lupin (Lupinus angustifolius
202 Pulses and their by-products as animal feed

L.) can be used up to 35 percent in pig diets. Inclusion of blue lupins at a

15 percent level is recommended in poultry diets. Andean lupin (Lupinus
mutabilis Sweet) is cultivated for human consumption in some regions of
South America but there is almost no information regarding Andean lupin
seed use for animal feed. Lupin forage can be used as fresh or dry fodder,
whole plant silage or hay for livestock feed.

In addition to the above-mentioned, there are a number of underexploited

and underutilized pulse crops of considerable nutritive value. Very little or
no information about their chemical composition, anti-nutritional factors,
levels in the diets and effect of their feeding are available. These include Scarlet
runner bean (Phaseolus coccineus L.), Tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius A.
Gray), Adzuki bean [Vigna angularis (Willd.) Ohwi & H. Ohashi], Moth
bean [Vigna aconitifolia (Jacq.) Maréchal] and Winged bean [Psophocarpus
tetragonolobus (L.) DC.]. Thus, there is a need to conduct further research on
these pulses and their by-products as animal feed.

REFERENCES cited in chapter 13

Calles, T. 2016. Preface to special issue of leguminous pulses. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ
Culture, 127: 541–542.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2013. FAOSTAT.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home
Feedipedia. 2016. Animal feed resources information system. INRA/CIRAD/AFZ//FAO
Available at: http://www.feedipedia.org/
ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics). 2016. Catch
the Pulse. Patancheru, Telangana, India. 36p.
Makkar, H.P.S., Tran, G., Heuzé, V. & Ankers, P. 2014. State-of-the-art on use of insects as
animal feed. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 197: 1–33.
Nemecek, T., von Richthofen, J.-S., Dubois, G., Casta, P., Charles, R. & Pahl, H. 2008.
Environmental impacts of introducing grain legumes into European crop rotations. European
Journal of Agronomy, 28(3): 380–393. DOI: 10.1016/j.eja.2007.11.004
 203

Appendixes
Appendix A. Major international research centres working on various pulse crops

Research centres

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)

Patancheru 502 324, Telangana State, India
Indian Institute of Pulses Research (IIPR)
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
Kanpur – 208024, India
Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI)
Hill Side Road, Pusa, New Delhi 110012
Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture (CLIMA),
The University of Western Australia
35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia 6009
Mailbox M080, Australia
Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia (DAFWA)
3 Baron-Hay Court, South Perth, WA 6151, Australia
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
Primary Industries Building, 80 Ann St, Brisbane City, QLD 4000, Australia
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)
38 Thynne Street, Fern Hill Park BRUCE ACT, Australia
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO)
Canberra, Australia
Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC)
East Building, 4/4 National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600, Australia
United States Department of Agriculture
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Washington, DC, United States ofAmerica
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Government of Canada
LEGATO (LEGumes for the Agriculture of Tomorrow)
European Union
International Legume Society (ILS)
Europe
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)
National Institute of Agricultural Research
Paris, France
Spanish National Research Council
Madrid, Spain
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, Brazil
General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies
Araştirma ve Teknoloji Geliştirme Kampüsü Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bulvarı
No: 38, P.K.51Yenimahalle/Ankara 06170 Türkiye
World Vegetable Centre (Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center; AVRDC)
Shanhua, Southern Taiwan
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)
Dalia Building 2nd Floor, Bashir El Kassar Street, Verdun, Beirut,
Lebanon 1108-2010, PO Box 114/5055, Beirut, Lebanon
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)
Km 17, Recta Cali-Palmira, Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cali, Colombia
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
PMB 5320, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
 204

Appendix B. Global production of major pulse crops (in ‘000 tonne)

Region/ Pigeon pea Cowpea
Dry bean Broad bean Pea Chickpea Lentil Other pulses Total
Country

Europe 506.4 580.2 3 024.0 156.3 -- 24.0 91.8 1 143.5 5 526.3

Africa 6 031.7 1 420.5 730.4 670.4 729.2 7 782.1 217.4 1 125.4 18 707.1
Western Asia 240.0 62.8 25.2 650.3 -- 1 314.0 555.6 39.2 2 887.2
Central Asia 71.9 13.5 76.0 19.7 -- -- 2.1 88.1 271.3
Southern Asia 4 009.8 5.4 839.1 9 895.4 3 039.6 14.2 1 543.8 1 534.1 20 881.5
Eastern Asia
(mainly 1 441.1 1 586.1 1 567.3 10.0 -- 13.2 150.0 133.3 4 900.9
China)
Southeastern
4 301.4 -- 68.0 490.0 579.7 116.3 0.9 300.9 5 857.2
Asia
Oceania 53.0 297.5 262.8 813.3 -- -- 327.3 513.2 2 267.1
Northern
America
1 320.9 -- 4 669.3 330.8 -- 29.0 2 400.5 -- 8 750.4
(Canada and
USA)
Central
2 035.3 59.0 5.2 209.9 2.0 -- 1.6 29.2 2 342.1
America
South
3 402.1 139.5 181.5 59.6 0.5 19.0 11.0 2.4 3 815.4
America
Total
23 413.5 4 164.6 11 448.7 13 305.7 4 350.9 9 311.7 5 301.9 4 909.5 76 206.4
production
Source: FAOSTAT (2013), Available at HTTP://WWW.FAO.ORG/pulses-2016/
Pulses and their by-products as animal feed
 FAO
Pulses and their by-products as animal feed
Humans have been using pulses, and legumes Pulses also play an important role in providing
in general, for millennia. Pulses currently
play a crucial role in sustainable development
due to their nutritional, environmental and
valuable products for animal feeding and thus
indirectly contribute to food security. Pulse
by-products are valuable sources of protein
Pulses and their by-products
economic values. The United Nations General
Assembly, at its 68th session, declared 2016
as the International Year of Pulses to further
and energy for animals and they do not
compete with human food. Available
information on this subject has been collated
as animal feed
promote the use and value of these important and synthesized in this book, to highlight the
crops. Pulses are an affordable source of nutritional role of pulses and their by-products
protein, so their share in the total protein as animal feed. This publication is one of
consumption in some developing countries the main contributions to the legacy of the
ranges between 10 and 40 percent. Pulses, International Year of Pulses. It aims to enhance
like legumes in general, have the important the use of pulses and their by-products in
ability of biologically fixing nitrogen and those regions where many pulse by-products
some of them are able to utilize soil-bound are simply dumped and will be useful for
phosphorus, thus they can be considered the extension workers, researchers, feed industry,
cornerstone of sustainable agriculture. policy-makers and donors alike.