Small Ruminant Research 50 (2003) 109116

Replacing soybean meal with sunflower seed meal in

the ration of Awassi ewes and lambs
R.H. Irshaid, M.Y. Harb, H.H. Titi
Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan

Accepted 24 March 2003

Abstract
Three experiments were conducted to evaluate sunflower seed meal (SFM) as a substitute for soybean meal (SBOM) in
rations of fattening Awassi lambs and milking ewes. In the first experiment, 12 Awassi lambs were assigned into four groups
to measure the digestibility of the SFM and experimental rations. The control group ration (1) contained SBOM while in the
other two rations, SFM replaced SBOM at a level of 50% (2) and 100% (3), respectively. The fourth group was fed only SFM.
No significant differences were observed between lambs fed the experimental rations in digestibilities of DM, OM, CP, CF,
NDF, ADF or N balance. NFE had a higher (P < 0.05) digestibility for ration 1 than ration 2.
In the second experiment, the voluntary feed intake was measured for the Awassi ewes during milking and dry period using
36 Awassi lactating ewes. For the two stages there were no significant differences between rations in voluntary intake. Milk
yields (kg/herd per day), milk fat (%) and milk total solids (%) were not different among groups.
In the third experiment, 42 lambs (males and females) were divided randomly into three treatment groups. Rations were
the same experimental rations in the digestibility study. There were no significant differences in the average final BW, ADG
and average feed conversion ratios (FCR) among the treatments.
These experiments showed that SFM could replace SBOM as a protein source in rations of fattening Awassi lambs and
milking Awassi ewes.
2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sunflower seed meal; Awassi lambs; Awassi ewes

1. Introduction differs according to their cultivar, soil characteristics

SBOM has been well established as a main pro-
tein source for animal nutrition (Schingoethe et al.,
1977). Meanwhile, the importance of sunflower seed
meal (SFM) as a high quality feed by-product is in-
creasing. World production of sunflower seed is large
and ranked fourth in oil seed production (Zhang and
Parsons, 1994). Chemical analysis of sunflower seeds
Corresponding author. Tel.: +962-6-5355000;
fax: +962-6-5355577/78.
E-mail address: htiti@ju.edu.jo (H.H. Titi).
and climatic conditions. According to the sunflower
seeds and the method of processing, there are many
types of SFM that differ in their properties.
Despite these wide variations, on average SFM
contains 3040% CP, 1315% CF, and 11.8 MJ ME
(Nishino et al., 1980; Richardson et al., 1981). Re-
cently, SFM is becoming available in Jordan for
animal nutrition and as a by-product of extraction
of sunflower oil locally. SFM could be used as a
substitute for SBOM.
As a protein supplement, SFM could replace
SBOM in rations of growing and fattening lambs with

0921-4488/$ see front matter 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0921-4488(03)00118-4
110 R.H. Irshaid et al. / Small Ruminant Research 50 (2003) 109116
similar gain and feed efficiency (Erickson et al., 1980;
Richardson et al., 1981). Economides and Koumas
(1999) concluded that SFM could successfully replace
SBOM in lamb fattening diets. No differences were
found in digestibility of CP, CF and ADF. However,
digestibility of DM, OM, NDF and NFE was lowest
with the SFM-based diet (Eweedah et al., 1996).
Data for calves and growing cattle showed that SFM
could be used successfully as protein supplement in
calf starter rations (Stake et al., 1973; Schingoethe
et al., 1974; Richardson et al., 1981). Milton et al.
(1997) found no significant differences in DMI, ADG
or feed efficiency in response to SFM.
SFM was equivalent to SBOM or other meals in
many studies of dairy cattle nutrition (Schingoethe
et al., 1977) with no differences in feed intakes, milk
yields, milk fats (%), milk total solids (%) and weight
changes between cows fed on SBOM or those fed
on SFM (Ullery, 1978; Nishino et al., 1980). It was
found that soybean or sunflower seeds can be used
as dietary fat or protein supplements to increase milk
yield (Middaugh et al., 1988; Markus et al., 1996;
Schingoethe et al., 1996).
Therefore the objectives of this research were to
study the effect of SFM on the digestibility of ma-
jor nutrients in the ration of Awassi lambs over the
trial period, effect of SFM on voluntary feed intake
of Awassi ewes during lactating and dry period, and
the effect of SFM on the performance of growing and
finishing Awassi lambs.
2. Materials and methods
Three trials were conducted at the Agriculture Re-
search Station of the University of Jordan, which is lo-
cated in the central Jordan Valley. SFM was obtained
from a local sunflower oil factory in dry form. Chem-
ical composition of SFM throughout the experiment
is presented on DM basis in Table 1.
2.1. Effect of feeding SFM as a replacement of
SBOM on digestibility of rations in Awassi lambs
Nine Awassi lambs were randomly divided into
three treatments of equal size. BW was considered
in the randomization. Average live weight of lambs
of different treatments ranged from 40.3 to 42.7 kg.
Table 1
Chemical composition of a representative sample of the SFM useda
Ingredient Value (%)
Moisture 7.3
CP 31.2
CF 32.1
EE 1.5
NFE 28.1
Ash 7.1
NDF 46.56
ADF 32.33
SFM: sunflower seed meal.
a Except for moisture percent, all values are expressed on DM
basis.
Lambs were housed in individual metabolic crates
for the whole experimental period. Rations contained
either SBOM as a source of protein, both SBOM and
SFM (2) (50:50 protein), or SFM (3) as a source of
protein. Table 2 shows the proximate and chemical
compositions of the rations. A fourth treatment group
composed of three lambs was fed SFM only as a sole
feed to find its digestibility. Lambs were fed at ad
libitum level during the adaptation period and at 90%
of voluntary feed intake during the collection period.
The adaptation period lasted for 15 days, and the
collection period lasted for another 5 days. Each lamb
was offered 800 g of feed daily and the orts were
collected and weighed. Fresh water was available for
each lamb all the time. Feed was offered once daily
at 08:00 h and any residuals left were removed before
feeding.
Feces and urine were collected and weighted daily
on an individual basis during the collection period.
Collected feces were composited over period for each
lamb, dried and stored at 4 C for later analysis. The
urine was collected in plastic jars containing 0.5 l wa-
ter with 20 ml of diluted H2 SO4 (1:1 by weight) and
then diluted to 7.0 l of water. Only 140 ml of the di-
luted urine of each lamb was taken and stored in a
refrigerator for later analysis. At the end of the ex-
periment, the collected feces and urine were compos-
ited for each lamb and one sample of each was taken
for analysis. Feces were analyzed for proximate and
Van Soest analysis while urine was analyzed for nitro-
gen (Van Soest and Robertson, 1980; AOAC, 1990).
Digestibility coefficients of DM, OM, CP, CF, NFE,
NDF and ADF were determined. N balance was cal-
culated to determine the proportion of the feed protein
 R.H. Irshaid et al. / Small Ruminant Research 50 (2003) 109116 111

Table 2 Table 3
Composition and chemical analysis of the rations fed to the fat- Composition and chemical analysis of the experimental rations fed
tening lambs in experiments 1 and 3a to Awassi ewesa
Rations Rations

SBOM Both SFM SBOM Both SFM

(1) meals (2) (3) (1) meals (2) (3)
Ingredients (% of the diet) Ingredients (% of the diet)
Barley straw 15 15 15 Barley straw 30 30 30
Wheat bran 10 10 10 Wheat bran 10 10 10
Barley grain 56.7 47.5 38.4 Barley grain 40.3 29.3 20.8
Soybean meal (SBOM) 16.3 8.1 SBOM 18 9
Sunflower seed meal (SFM) 17.4 34.6 SFM 20 37.5
Limestone 1 1 1 Limestone 0.5 0.5 0.5
Dicalcium phosphate 0.5 0.5 0.5 Dicalcium phosphate 0.5 0.5 0.5
Salt 0.4 0.4 0.4 Salt 0.6 0.6 0.6
Trace minerals + vitamin 0.1 0.1 0.1 Trace minerals + vitamin 0.1 0.1 0.1
mixtureb mixtureb
Chemical analysis (%) Chemical analysis (%)
Moisture 9.34 8.91 8.86 Moisture 8.3 7.9 7.7
Ash 7.1 6.2 6.5 Ash 8.4 8.4 7.1
CP 17.6 17.7 17.9 CP 16.3 16.5 16.4
CF 10.1 19.2 20.8 CF 20.9 25.9 25.6
EE 1.6 5.8 2.0 EE 2.0 2.3 3.7
NFE 63.6 51.0 52.7 NFE 52.3 47 47.3
NDF 31.0 52.4 63.4 NDF 69.2 45.9 55.8
ADF 7.3 15.3 17.0 ADF 21.1 23.2 31.8
MEc 10.4 10.0 9.7 MEc 9.7 9.2 8.8
a DM basis except the moisture content. a DM basis except the moisture content.
b 1 g contains: 7.5 MIU Vitamin A, 1.9 MIU Vitamin D3 , 4 mg b 1 g contains: 7.5 MIU Vitamin A, 1.9 MIU Vitamin D3 , 4 mg
Vitamin E (50%), 200 mg magnesium sulfate, 6.4 mg iron sulfate, Vitamin E (50%), 200 mg magnesium sulfate, 6.4 mg iron sulfate,
1.03 mg cobalt carbonate, 12.96 mg zinc sulfate, 4.84 mg man- 1.03 mg cobalt carbonate, 12.96 mg zinc sulfate, 4.84 mg man-
ganese oxide, 0.79 mg potassium iodide, 0.23 mg sodium selenite ganese oxide, 0.79 mg potassium iodide, 0.23 mg sodium selenite
and 12 mg copper sulfate in addition to antioxidant. and 12 mg copper sulfate in addition to antioxidant.
c Values are measured in MJ/kg. Calculated from values of c Values are measured in MJ/kg. Calculated from values of

NRC (1985). NRC (1985).

utilized by the lamb for synthesizing body tissues and

compounds. Water consumption of lambs was mea-
sured twice during the collection period to determine
the effect of SFM on water consumption.
Analysis of variance was performed on the data ac-
cording the general linear model of the SAS (1988).
The model was designed to study the effect of differ-
ent protein sources on parameters measured through-
out the experiment. Treatment means were compared
using the LSD test (Steel and Torrie, 1980).
2.2. Effect of feeding SFM on voluntary intake and
milk production of Awassi ewes
Thirty six lactating Awassi ewes (BW: 54.559 kg)
were used in a completely randomized design with
three treatments. Each treatment contained two
groups. Age was considered in the randomization.
Each group was penned separately in a shaded pen.
Ewes were fed according to the NRC (1985) al-
lowances and recommendations. Three isonitrogenous
rations were fed containing SBOM, SFM, or both.
DM composition and proximate analysis of the dif-
ferent rations in the experiments are listed in Table 3.
Rations were fed to ewes for 2 weeks as adaptation
period while the experiment lasted for 70 days. Ex-
perimental period was divided into a milking phase
and dry phase. The milking period lasted for 18 days
in which voluntary intake and milk production were
measured. The dry period lasted for 52 days in which
only voluntary intake was measured. Individual BW
112 R.H. Irshaid et al. / Small Ruminant Research 50 (2003) 109116
of ewes was measured at the beginning and end of
each period. Feed was provided on ad libitum basis
for each group. Chemical composition of rations was
determined using proximate and Van Soest analysis
(Van Soest and Robertson, 1980; AOAC, 1990). Feed
intake was calculated individually by subtraction of
orts from the total amount of feed offered to each
group. Ewes were milked twice daily and milk yield
was measured individually twice weekly. Representa-
tive milk samples from each group were taken once
weekly for analysis. The milk samples were analyzed
for total solids and fat percentage (Richardson, 1985).
Data were analyzed according the general linear
model of the SAS (1988). The model was designed
to determine the effect of different protein sources
on parameters measured throughout the experiment.
ANOVA was performed and treatment means were
compared by using the LSD test (Steel and Torrie,
1980).
2.3. Effect of replacing SBOM with SFM in the
rations of fattening Awassi lambs
Forty two newly weaned Awassi lambs (males and
females; average BW: 21.624.1 kg) were divided ran-
domly into three treatments with two groups per treat-
ment. The experiment lasted for 85 days. Treatments
included three isonitrogenous total mixed rations with
either SBOM, SFM, or both as a protein source. Ra-
tions were fed ad libitum and amounts fed to each
group were recorded daily. Ingredient composition and
proximate analysis of the fed rations are presented in
Table 2. The rations were introduced gradually for 12
days adaptation period before the experimental rations
were provided. Lambs were weighed individually
bi-weekly and ADG, feed intake and feed conversion
ratio (FCR) were calculated. Before starting, all lambs
were vaccinated subcutaneously for enterotoxaemia
and treated against internal parasites. Statistical data
analysis was conducted utilizing general linear model
of the SAS (1988). The model was designed to de-
termine the effect of using different protein sources
on parameters measured throughout the experiment.
Treatment means were compared using the LSD test
(Steel and Torrie, 1980). Initial weights were used as
a covariate in the model utilized for statistical analy-
sis. Furthermore, week effect was introduced in the
model in a repeated measure design to study treatment
effect throughout the experiment (Steel and Torrie,
1980).
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Effect of feeding SFM as a replacement of
SBOM on digestibility of rations in Awassi lambs
Average digestibility coefficients obtained from
lambs fed SFM only are shown in Table 4. Digestibil-
ity coefficients of the lambs fed the experimental
rations are presented in Table 5. There were no signif-
icant differences in DM digestibility among the three
rations. As the SFM portion increased in the ration,
a little decrease in DM digestibility was found. Yet,
this drop in digestibility was not significant. OM di-
gestibility for the three rations was also not different.
Similar results were also obtained for apparent di-
gestibility of all other components except for rations
1 and 2 in NFE digestibility.
N balance was calculated in this experiment and
no differences were observed among all rations fed.
Furthermore, water consumption did not differ among
all treatments.
Using SFM as a protein source did not decrease
DM digestibility. The data obtained are in agreement
with Luger and Leitgeb (1993) who found no signif-
icant differences among diets fed to male Simmen-
tal cattle in the digestibility of nutrients. However,
this result disagreed with Stake et al. (1973) who
found that digestibility of DM for SBOM-based diets
fed to Holstein calves was significantly higher than
SFM-based diets while protein digestibility for the
two diets was not significantly different. Also, Nishino
et al. (1986) found that digestibility of DM was signif-
icantly lower in weaned calves fed SFM-based ration
Table 4
Average digestibility coefficients of major nutrients for SFM
Average digestibility coefficient Value (%)
DM 63.0
OM 67.0
CP (apparent) 83.0
CF 42.9
NFE 80.1
NDF 45.7
ADF 41.2
 R.H. Irshaid et al. / Small Ruminant Research 50 (2003) 109116 113

Table 5
Average digestibility coefficients of major nutrients and N balance for the three experimental rationsa
Digestibility coefficient (%) Rations

SBOM (1) Both meals (2) SFM (3)

DM 76.4 1.69 75.1 0.6 72.3 1.08

OM 81.4 1.95 80.3 0.97 78.9 1.08
CP (apparent) 79.0 0.57 80.8 0.32 78.4 1.27
CF 51.8 5.7 57.0 4.4 57.4 1.83
NFE 89.4 1.0 a 85.4 0.96 b 86.6 0.59 ab
NDF 65.1 1.94 71.5 3.8 72.2 0.95
ADF 39.9 8.26 43.3 4.25 42.1 2.25
N balance (g per day) +7.2 1.46 +7.5 0.4 +6.2 0.35
Water consumption (l/herd per day) 5.44 0.87 6.04 0.59 5.2 0.75
Means with different letters (a and b) are different (P < 0.05).
a Means standard error.

but digestibility of CP was not affected by the ration.
On the other hand, Eweedah et al. (1996) found that
there were no significant differences between groups
of lambs in digestibility of CP, CF and ADF, while
digestibility of DM, OM, NDF and NFE was lowest
with the SFM-based diet. It looks like the response
to the SFM varied due to wide variation in chemical
composition.
3.2. Effect of feeding SFM on voluntary intake and
milk production of Awassi ewes
Total feed intake during the milking period and av-
erage daily feed intake are in Table 6. Voluntary feed
intake for ewes during the two stages of the experi-
ment, the milking and dry period, were measured by
calculating the feed intake individually of each group
in the treatment along the whole stage. According to
these results, the highest average daily feed intake oc-
curred with the ration containing SFM although the
difference was not significant (P > 0.05). During the
dry period, the lowest average daily feed intake oc-
curred with the SBOM treatment without any differ-
ence among all treatments. This might be due to the
SBOM ration having a little higher ME content than
other rations which reduced feed intake.
Data in Table 6 illustrate that the average final BW
of ewes was highest with the SBOM ration although

Table 6
Total feed intake, milk production, and milk composition of ewes during milking and dry perioda
Rations

SBOM (1) Both meals (2) SFM (3)

(a) Milking phase

Average initial BW (kg) 58.5 1.5 56.9 1.54 55.4 2
Average final BW (kg) 59.9 1.56 57.7 1.9 55.9 1.49
Total feed intake (kg) 406 407 418
Average daily feed intake (kg/ewe per day) 1.88 0.03 1.89 0.26 1.94 0.16
Average daily milk yield (kg/ewe) 0.314 0.078 0.301 0.096 0.263 0.069
Average fat (%) 6.85 0.15 7.65 0.35 7.0 0.1
Average total solids (%) 16.1 0.045 16.5 0.725 15.7 0.35
(b) Dry phase
Average initial BW (kg) 58.9 1.56 57.7 1.49 55.9 1.9
Average final BW (kg) 63.4 2.02 61.2 1.75 61.2 2.18
Total feed intake 807 905 903
Average daily feed intake (kg/ewe per day) 1.29 0.04 1.45 0.1 1.45 0.108
a Means standard error.
114 R.H. Irshaid et al. / Small Ruminant Research 50 (2003) 109116

Fig. 1. Average daily milk yield of ewes, fed soybean meal, sunflower seed meal or both meals.

this increase in BW during the dry period was not
significant.
There were no significant differences in milk pro-
duction or fat and total solids percentages of ewes fed
the three rations. The curves shown in Fig. 1 illustrate
that ewes fed SBOM as main protein concentrate were
superior in milk production over ewes which were fed
SFM without any significant difference.
Results of this experiment are in agreement with
Schingoethe et al. (1977) and Vincent et al. (1990) who
found that protein from SFM is equivalent to that from
SBOM for lactating cows with milk yield and milk
composition of cows fed SFM not affected by diet. At
the same time, Wanapat et al. (1982) and Economides
(1998) reported that SFM and SBOM could be used
interchangeably on an equal protein basis for sheep fed
high roughage diets. However, Nishino et al. (1980)
concluded that milk yield and composition were not
significantly different among treatments but milk yield
tended to be greater in cows given SFM.
It is also shown that ewes consumed the exper-
imental rations within two stages, milking and dry
period, had no noticeable digestive or physiological
disturbances and had approximately the same produc-
tion efficiency of milk and milk characteristics with-
out significant differences. This may be due to the
higher fiber content of the ration containing SFM.
Such findings agreed with earlier reports indicating

Table 7
Average initial BW, final BW, ADG and total BW increase for lambs fed the three experimental rations
Rations

SBOM (1) Both meals (2) SFM (3)

Number of animals 14 14 14
Mortality 1
Average initial BW/lamb (kg) 22.65 1.18 21.65 1.0 24.1 1.45
Average final BW/lamb (kg) 38.37 1.29 36.5 1.8 37.6 1.6
ADG (kg per day) 0.185 0.01 0.175 0.01 0.159 0.01
Average total BW increase/lamb (kg) 15.72 0.9 14.85 1.5 13.5 1.05
Average feed intake (kg per day) 1.2 0.08 1.25 0.13 1.26 0.07
Feed conversion ratio (kg ration/kg growth) 6.49 0.4 7.15 0.6 7.93 0.55
Means standard error.
 R.H. Irshaid et al. / Small Ruminant Research 50 (2003) 109116
Fig. 2. Growth rate of lambs during fattening experiment on the three experimental rations.
no palatability problems due to feeding SFM as a
protein supplement for animals (Stake et al., 1973;
Schingoethe et al., 1977).
3.3. Effect of replacing SBOM with SFM in the
rations of fattening Awassi lambs
The average values for growth characters of lambs
during the fattening trial are presented in Table 7. No
differences were observed among treatments for all
measurements. Data showed no significant differences
among lambs in ADG or in average final BW. How-
ever, lambs fed SFM as a main protein source gained
numerically less than lambs fed SBOM. Values for av-
erage daily gain and average total weight gain were
not different (P > 0.05). However, ADG was higher
for SBOM fed lambs.
Lack of differences in average feed intake per ani-
mal (kg per day) among the three rations gives an in-
dication that palatability of SFM is as good as or even
better than SBOM. Feed conversion ratio for lambs fed
SBOM was better than that for other lambs but these
differences were not significant (P > 0.05). The trend
in weight gain among the three treatments is shown in
Fig. 2, which reflects the non-significant superiority
of SBOM over the other rations.
Results of the experiment are in agreement with re-
sults obtained by Erickson et al. (1980) who found
that lamb performance based on gains and feed effi-
115
ciencies were similar for SBOM and SFM. Richardson
et al. (1981) compared SFM and other meals and found
that lambs fed diets containing either SFM, cotton-
seed meal or both containing 12% CP had similar gain
and feed efficiency. Rao et al. (1995) examined re-
placing groundnut cake protein with sunflower cake
in complete rations for sheep and found that balanced
low-cost complete diets could be formulated for sheep
by replacing costly groundnut cake protein with sun-
flower cake. Economides and Koumas (1999) found
that SFM could successfully replace SBOM in the fat-
tening diets of lambs.
The results of these experiments showed that SFM
could be incorporated in the ration of Awassi lambs
and ewes without any harmful effect on the digestibil-
ity, voluntary intake and growth. According to the re-
sults, no reason restricts the usage of SFM for Awassi
lambs and lactating dairy ewes except price. SFM
could be used as a protein supplement for feeding
Awassi lambs and sheep with SBOM or instead of
SBOM according to its availability and price. Feeding
SFM for sheep may be encouraged as a replacement
for SBOM. However, this should be looked at care-
fully as many factors might affect its composition.
References
AOAC, 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed. Association
of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA.
116 R.H. Irshaid et al. / Small Ruminant Research 50 (2003) 109116
Economides, S., 1998. The nutritive value of SFM and its effect
on replacing cereal straw in the diets of lactating ewes and
goats. Livestock Prod. Sci. 55, 8997.
Economides, S., Koumas, A., 1999. Replacement of SBOM with
Peanut Meal, SFM, Carbon Vetch Meal or Urea in Concentrate
Diets of Early-Weaned Lambs. Agriculture Research Institute,
Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Erickson, O.D., Hankel, M., Light, R.M., Limesand, W., Faller,
T., 1980. SFM vs. SBOM for feeder lambs. J. Anim. Sci.
51 (Suppl. 1), 9697.
Eweedah, N., Varhegyi, J., Gundel, J., Rozsa, L., 1996. A
note on the use of some oilseeds in compound feeds for
lamb: digestibility, rumen fermentation, nutritive value and
degradability. Nutr. Abstr. Rev., Ser. B 68, 216.
Luger, K.R., Leitgeb, L., 1993. Influence of SFM in diets for
Simmental bulls on growing and slaughtering performance.
Bodenkultur 44 (1), 7987.
Markus, B.S., Wittenberg, M.K., Ingalls, R.J., Undi, M., 1996.
Production responses by early lactating cows to whole sunflower
seed or tallow supplementation of a diet based on barley. J.
Dairy Sci. 79, 18171825.
Middaugh, P.R., Baer, J.R., Casper, P.D., Schingoethe, J.D., Seas,
W.S., 1988. Characteristics of milk and butter from cows fed
sunflower seeds. J. Dairy Sci. 71, 31793187.
Milton, T.C., Brandt, T.R., Titgemeyer, C.E., Kuhl, L.G., 1997.
Effect of degradable and escape protein and roughage type on
performance and carcass characteristics of finishing yearling
steers. J. Anim. Sci. 75, 28342840.
NRC, 1985. Nutrient Requirements of Sheep, sixth ed. National
Academy of Science, National Research Council, Washington,
DC.
Nishino, S., Kondo, S., Hayashi, K., 1980. Feeding value of SFM as
a replacement for SBOM in lactating cows. J. College Dairying
8, 275.
Nishino, S., Isogai, K., Kimata, S., 1986. SFM as a replacement for
SBOM in calf starter rations. J. College Dairying 11, 381390.
Rao, K.C., Reddy, J.T., Raghavan, V.G., 1995. Effect of replacing
groundnut cake protein by sunflower cake in complete rations
for sheep. Indian J. Anim. Nutr. 12, 97.
Richardson, G.H., 1985. Standard Methods for the Examination of
Dairy Products, 15th ed. American Public Health Association,
Washington, DC.
Richardson, R.C., Beville, N.R., Ratcliff, K.R., Albin, C.R., 1981.
SFM as a protein supplement for growing ruminants. J. Anim.
Sci. 53, 557.
SAS, 1988. SAS/STAT Users Guide. Release 6.03. SAS Institute
Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
Schingoethe, J.D., Stake, E.P., Beardsley, L.G., Owens, J.M., 1974.
SFM or rapeseed meal in calf rations. South Dakota Farm
Home Res. 25, 79.
Schingoethe, J.D., Rook, A.J., Ludens, F., 1977. Evaluation of
SFM as a protein supplement for lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci.
60, 591595.
Schingoethe, J.D., Brouk, J.M., Lightfield, D.K., Baer, J.R., 1996.
Lactational responses of dairy cows fed unsaturated fat from
extruded soybeans or sunflower seeds. J. Dairy Sci. 79, 1244
1249.
Stake, E.P., Owens, J.M., Schingoethe, J.D., 1973. Rapeseed,
sunflower, and SBOM supplementation of calf rations. J. Dairy
Sci. 56, 783788.
Steel, G.D.R., Torrie, H.J., 1980. Principles and Procedures of
Statistics, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ullery, J., 1978. Low-cost protein. South Dakota Farm Home Res.
29, 17.
Van Soest, P., Robertson, J.J.B., 1980. Systems of analysis for
evaluating fibrous feeds. In: Pigden, W.J., Balch, C.C., Graham,
M. (Eds.), Standardization of Analytical Methodology for
Feeds. International Research Development Center, Publication
No.134e, Ottawa, Canada.
Vincent, C.I., Hill, R., Campling, C.R., 1990. A note on the
use of rapeseed, sunflower and SBOMs as protein sources
in compound foods for milking cattle. Anim. Prod. 50, 541
543.
Wanapat, M., Erickson, O.D., Slanger, D.W., 1982. Nitrogen
metabolism in sheep fed protein sources of various solubilities
with low quality roughages. J. Anim. Sci. 54, 625631.
Zhang, Y., Parsons, M.C., 1994. Effects of overprocessing on the
nutritional quality of SFM. Poult. Sci. 73, 436442.