CVB Feed Table 2021 544
CVB Feed Table 2021 544
CVB Feed Table 2021 544
March 2021
No part of this edition may be copied, photocopied, reproduced, translated or reduced to any
electronic medium or machine-readable form, in whole or in part, without specific written
permission of the Stichting CVB (info@cvbdiervoeding.nl).
This publication has been compiled with great care; however, the Stichting CVB, Wageningen
Livestock Research (WLR), and the Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO)
cannot be held liable in any way for the consequences of using the information in this publication.
2
PREFACE
In comparison with the former edition of the CVB Feed Table in 2019 the following changes are
made:
a. The data of two large research projects in which the energy value of high moisture
industrial co-products and compound feedstuffs were studied were added to the already
existing CVB dataset. Based on this extended dataset the calculation rules for 111
compound feedstuffs and 34 high moisture industrial co-products for growing pigs were
updated.
b. Furthermore, 3 new high moisture industrial co-products are added to the CVB Feed
Table. These products are pea fibre, liquid pea protein and pea creme.
c. In practice the starch content in wheat and wheat milling by-products are analysed based
on the Ewers method (STAew) whereas the feed evaluation systems calculates with
starch contents that are analysed using the amylase method (STAam). Therefore, in the
past the relationship between STAew and STAam has been determined based on wheat
and wheat milling by-products samples that were analysed on both STAew and STAam.
The relationship between STAew and STAam for wheat and wheat by-products has
recently been updated based on new information.
d. For 3 feedstuffs (wheat, lucerne silage and corn cob mix (CCM)) it appeared that in the
former CVB Feed Table edition erroneous Co contents were presented. In this edition the
correct Co concentrations are provided.
March 2021
3
CONTENTS
Page
Preface ....................................................................................................................................... 3
4
3.3.5.4 Direct derivation of VEVI from ME for some levels of q .......................................... 31
3.3.6 Energy value of sugars, starch, organic acids and ethanol ............................................ 31
3.4 Protein system for ruminants ................................................................................................. 32
3.4.1 The DVE/OEB system 1991 ........................................................................................... 32
3.4.2.1.1 Intestinal degradable rumen undegraded protein (DRUP) ..................................... 38
3.4.2.1.2 Calculation of rumen undegradability of protein (%RUP) ................................... 38
3.4.2.1.3 Origin of data concerning protein undegradability (%RUP) ................................. 39
3.4.2.1.4 Intestinal digestibility of the undegraded protein (%DRUP) ................................. 39
3.4.2.1.5 Intestinal degradable microbial crude protein (DMP) ............................................. 39
3.4.2.1.6 Amount of intestinal degradable metabolic faecal protein (DMFP) ........................ 40
3.4.2.2 The rumen degraded protein balance (OEB) ................................................................. 41
3.4.2.3 Fermentable organic matter in the rumen (FOMr) .......................................................... 41
3.4.2.4 Intestinal digestible amino acids ..................................................................................... 41
3.4.2.5 Sugars, glucose oligosaccharides (GOS) and crude fat in the DVE/OEB
2007 system ................................................................................................................................... 42
3.4.2.6 Rumen undegraded starch (%RUSTA) .......................................................................... 42
3.4.2.7 Degradation characteristics of NDF and RNSP ............................................................. 43
3.5 Structure value (SV) ............................................................................................................... 43
3.6 Calculation examples ............................................................................................................. 45
4. FEED EVALUATION SYSTEMS FOR PIGS ................................................................... 46
4.1 Feed evaluation systems........................................................................................................ 46
4.2 Net energy system ................................................................................................................. 46
4.2.1 Chemical composition of the feedstuff ............................................................................ 46
4.2.2 Digestibility values .......................................................................................................... 46
4.2.2.1 Determination of the in vivo digestibility of feedstuffs for growing pigs .................. 46
4.2.2.2 Origin of data on faecal digestibility of feedstuffs for growing pigs ......................... 47
4.2.2.3 Derivation of equations for calculating faecal digestible contents of CP, CFATh and
NSPh 47
4.2.2.4 Calculating the content of digestible crude fat ........................................................ 47
4.2.2.5 Non-starch polysaccharides (NSPh) ....................................................................... 48
4.2.2.5.1 Calculation of (D)NSPh in digestibility trials ................................................................ 48
4.2.2.5.2 Calculation of (D)NSPh in dry compound feedstuff samples in practice .................... 49
4.2.2.5.3 Calculation of (D)NSPh in high moisture industrial co-product samples in
practice ....................................................................................................................................... 49
4.2.3 Net energy values ........................................................................................................... 50
4.2.3.1 New equation for net energy for growth (NE2015) .................................................... 50
4.2.3.2 Explanation for the contribution of glucose oligosaccharides and fermentation
products to NE2015 ...................................................................................................................... 51
4.2.3.3 Compound feedstuffs generaly do not contain fermentation products ................... 52
4.2.3.4 Native starch in potato products ............................................................................. 52
4.2.3.5 Correction factor for sugar (CF_DI) ........................................................................ 53
4.2.3.6 Digestibility of sugars .............................................................................................. 53
4.2.3.7 The NE2015 equation is based on respiratory trials with growing pigs ..................... 53
4.2.4 The NEv value of sugar beet pulp products ................................................................... 53
4.2.5 The EW value ................................................................................................................. 54
4.2.6 The energy value of fermentation products and amino acids......................................... 54
4.2.6.1 Estimation of the energy value of fermentation products based on their ATP
yielding capacity ......................................................................................................................... 54
4.2.6.2 Estimation of the energy value of synthetic amino acids ........................................ 55
4.3 Protein value .......................................................................................................................... 55
4.3.1 Determination of apparent ileal digestible amino acids in cannulated pigs .................... 55
4.3.2 Endogenous losses ........................................................................................................ 55
4.3.2.1 Origin of endogenous losses .................................................................................. 56
4.3.2.2 Basal endogenous protein vs specific endogenous protein.................................... 56
4.3.3 True ileal digestibility of amino acids .............................................................................. 56
4.3.4 Standardized ileal digestibility amino acids .................................................................... 57
4.3.5 Origin of the data on ileal digestible amino acids in feedstuffs ...................................... 57
4.3.6 Contents of standardized and apparent ileal digestible amino acids ............................. 58
4.3.7 Requirements of standardized and apparent ileal digestible amino acids ..................... 59
5
4.4 Digestibility of phosphorus ..................................................................................................... 59
4.5 Calculation examples ............................................................................................................. 60
5. FEED EVALUATION SYSTEMS FOR POULTRY .......................................................... 61
5.1 Feed evaluation systems........................................................................................................ 61
5.2 Energy systems ...................................................................................................................... 61
5.2.1 Metabolizable energy system for adult animals ............................................................. 61
5.2.1.1 Digestibility figures .................................................................................................. 61
5.2.1.2 Energy value for adult roosters ............................................................................... 62
5.2.1.3 Energy value for laying hens ................................................................................... 64
5.2.2 Broilers ............................................................................................................................ 64
5.2.2.1 General.................................................................................................................... 64
5.2.2.2 Digestibilities ........................................................................................................... 65
5.2.2.3 Energy value ........................................................................................................... 65
5.3 Protein value for poultry ......................................................................................................... 67
5.3.1 Feedstuffs ....................................................................................................................... 67
5.4 Digestibility of phosphorus ..................................................................................................... 68
5.5 Calculation examples ............................................................................................................. 69
6. FEED EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR RABBITS .............................................................. 70
6.1 Feed evaluation for rabbits ..................................................................................................... 70
6.2 Energy value .......................................................................................................................... 70
6.2.1 Digestibility figures .......................................................................................................... 70
6.2.2 Energy evaluation system............................................................................................... 70
6.3 Calculation examples ............................................................................................................. 71
7. FEED EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR HORSES ............................................................... 72
7.1 Feed evaluation systems........................................................................................................ 72
7.2 Energy value .......................................................................................................................... 72
7.2.1 Gross energy (GE).................................................................................................................... 72
7.2.2 Digestible energy (DE).................................................................................................... 72
7.2.3 Metabolisable energy (ME) ............................................................................................. 73
7.2.4 Utilization of metabolizable energy for maintenance (k m) ............................................... 74
7.2.5 Net energy for maintenance (NEm) ................................................................................ 74
7.2.6 How to calculate EWpa................................................................................................... 75
7.3 Protein value .......................................................................................................................... 76
7.4 Calculation examples ............................................................................................................. 76
8. Literature references ...................................................................................................... 77
6
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Reader manual
Thereafter, Chapter 10 contains the main part of this publication, the information on separate
feedstuffs (also see paragraph 1.1.2).
The contents and values of compound feedstuffs are presented on product basis; those of high
moisture industrial co-products on dry matter basis.
1.1.2.3 Miscellaneous
This concerns mineral feedstuffs, for which the composition is stated, and some pure substances
(e.g., organic acids); for both groups relevant feeding value characteristics are given.
7
1.1.2.4 Points of attention for feedstuffs
With several feedstuffs specific points of attention apply. These points of attention, if applicable to
a feedstuff can be found underneath the second page of the productsheet of that particular
feedstuff.
It is emphasized that the product information in this table can only be regarded as a
guideline, and not as a faultless representation of contents of the feedstuffs mentioned.
To determine the correct contents of a certain batch of a feedstuff, laboratory analysis of
samples of that batch is required. This is especially the case for feedstuffs where the
standard deviation (sdc) is high.
Furthermore, it is pointed out that in many cases in this table, recalculations have been
made from product-based to dry matter-based contents and values, and vice versa.
When recalculating the feeding values of the individual feedstuffs, small deviations may
occur due to rounding of values.
8
2 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FEEDSTUFFS
2.1 General
In this chapter, concise information is given on the chemical composition, as stated for the
individual feedstuffs. More elaborate information is given in document RD002 on the CVB-website
www.cvbdiervoeding.nl
The composition of the feedstuffs in the Feed Table are, as much as possible, based on
information from the CVB database. For some chemical parameters, in a limited number of
cases, literature values have been used.
The feedstuff itself also has to meet certain criteria, before it can be included in one of the CVB
tables. These criteria concerning the nature (and production method) of the feedstuff, the
reliability of the available analytical results, the use of the feedstuff and information on the
digestibility of chemical components for at least one animal species.
When analytical results of Weende components are available for ten or more samples, the
variability (sdc) is added to the mean content. For amino acids, macro-minerals, and micro-
minerals, sdc is given when at least five analytical results are available.
When no content is known for a nutrient, the table shows a dash (-). When a value 0 is given in
the table, the content of this nutrient is zero.
9
2.3.2 Starch (STAam)
In the CVB feed evaluation systems, the starch content (where appropriate) is determined by using the enzyme amyloglucosidase (STAam) (ISO/DIS
15914, 2004), and not according to the polarimetric method of Ewers (STAew) (ISO/DIS 6493, 2000), as used in the past in the Netherlands, and still
in many other countries). Because in practise in most cases the polarimetric method is used, the CVB database contains for almost all feedstuffs
more STAew records than STAew records. The CVB database contains for some, but not yet for all, feedstuffs sufficient STAam data to calculate a
representative mean value. When insufficient STAam data are available in the database, (feedstuff-specific) regression equations have been used to
estimate STAam from STAew. These equations are based on samples, in which both STAam and STAew were determined. Subsequently, the
relation between STAam and STA ew was determined by means of regression analysis. The product sheets of this Feed Table contain the calculated
STAam values based on the regression equation presented below. In cases were no regression equations were developped but analyzed STAam
data was available the mean of the analysed STAam is presented. The estimation equations are meant to calculate STAam from STAew (on dry
matter basis). Equations without a constant may also be used directly (on product base). These regression equations may also be used in practice to
calculate STAam from STAew. However, it is recommended to determine STAam according to the official analytical procedure. For some feedstuffs
rich in starch (e.g. peas and horse beans) no regression equations were developped as (part of the) STAew is an artefact. This is also true for
feestuffs such as beet pulp, citrus pulp, and oil containing seeds and their by-products.
Below, the derived estimation equations are given for the various product categories. To be able to use these equations in practice, the minimum and
maximum STAew in the database underlying the equations are also given, together with the explained variance and the standard error of the
estimation of STAam from STAew.
The regression equations have also been included in the on-line ‘CVB feeding value calculator’.
10
Equation Products used to derive the equation To be used in practice for
nr a* STAew const se R2 NAME CODE NAME
3 0.7649 0 12.4 0.930 Potato pulp, dehydrated 4001.202 Potato pulp, dehydrated
Database: min-max value: 310-475 g/kg DM
4 0.6207 11.291 5.4 0.939 Brewer’s yeast, dehydrated 9001.315 Brewer’s yeast, dehydrated
Database: min-max value: 20-90 g/kg DM Brewer’s yeast 9001.314 Brewer’s yeast
5 0.9597 0 22.1 0.934 Biscuits, ground 9011.001 Biscuits, ground, CFAT < 120 g/kg
Database: min-max value: 330-620 g/kg DM Bread meal 9011,002 Biscuits, ground, CFAT > 120 g/kg
1010.612 Bread meal
6 0.9206 0 33.6 0.956 Barley
Database: min-max value: 50-760 g/kg DM Barley feed, high grade 1005.112 Barley feed, high grade
Barley mill by-product 1005.105 Barley mill by-product
9 0.9967 -33.83 9.4 0.991 Maize glutenfeed, fresh and ensiled 1002.240 Maize glutenfeed, fresh and ensiled
Database: min-max value: 130-450 g/kg DM Maize glutenfeed 1002.205 Maize glutenfeed
11
Equation Products used to derive the equation To be used in practice for
nr a* STAew const se R2 NAME CODE NAME
10 1.0293 -35.5 16.6 0.997 Rice 1003.000 Rice
Database: min-max value: 210-890 g/kg DM Rice husk meal 1003.115 Rice husk meal
Rice feed meal 1003.122 Rice feed meal
Rice bran meal, solvent extracted 1003.416 Rice bran meal, solvent extracted
12
Equation Products used to derive the equation To be used in practice for
nr a* STAew const se R2 NAME CODE NAME
19 0 12 3015.401 Cottonseed expeller
5004.610 Alfalfa meal, dehydrated
20 0 22 3015.407 Cottonseed extracted
21 0 40 3006.407 Linseed extracted
24 1 0 1008.204 Sorghum gluten meal
4008.201 Tapioca starch
1010.204 Wheat gluten meal
13
2.3.3 Crude fat (CFAT and CFATh)
The type of crude fat (CFAT or CFATh) to be used for the calculation of energy values for animals
depends on the one hand on the type of energy evaluation system and on the other hand on the
type of feedstuff. For the calculation of of metabolizable energy for broilers (MEbr), since 2011 for
all feedstuffs, the MEbr calculated using the crude fat value that is based on a method where the
sample is hydrolysed with acid before analysis on crude fat (CFATh; Method B). For the
calculation of NE2015 values for pigs also CFATh analysis values are used. For the VEM/VEVI
calculation for ruminants, the MEpo and MEla for, respectively, adult poultry and laying hens, the
MErab for rabbits, and the EWpa for horses in most cases the crude fat value is used that is
based on a crude fat analysis with petroleum ether as an extraction solvent, without a preceding
acid hydrolysis step (CFAT; Method A). For these feedstuffs, there is (generally speaking) a small
and relatively constant difference between the fat analysis without and with acid hydrolysis.
For certain feedstuffs (e.g., feedstuffs of animal origin, maize gluten feed, many high moisture
industrial co-products; see also paragraph 2.4) this is not the case; the energy value is then
based on the fat content analysed after acid hydrolysis. An overview of the feedstuffs (only first
two numbers of the code number (see paragraph 1.2)) is given in the Table below for which the
CFATh value is used for calculation of the energy values for ruminants, horses, rabbits, adult
poultry and laying hens:
Overview of feedstuffs (presented as the code number) for which the CFATh value is used for
calculation of the energy values for ruminants, horses, rabbits, adult poultry and laying hens
1000.304 1005.324 4001.231 8007.000
1002.204 1010.204 4001.637 8009.000
1002.205 1010.205 4001.638 8009.626
1002.212 1010.234 4001.664 8010.000
1002.240 1010.236 4006.634 8012.000
1002.308 1010.310 8001.001 8023.000
1002.310 1010.612 8001.003 9001.315
1002.517 1010.689 8003.629 9011.001
1002.629 4001.203 8004.000 9011.002
1005.313 4001.223 8005.000
For many compound feedstuffs, the Feed Table gives the contents of both CFAT (crude fat
without acid hydrolysis) and CFATh (crude fat after acid hydrolysis). CVB has performed
comparative analyses in a large number of samples of individual feedstuffs to calculate the mean
difference between the two methods in order to report mutual consistent CFAT and CFATh
contents. The CFAT content on the product sheets is based on analyses from the CVB database;
the CFATh content is usually derived from the mean of the analysed CFAT content adding the
observed difference between CFATh and CFAT to this CFAT value in order to obtain a CFATh
value that is consistent with the reported mean analysed CFAT value.
15
RD003 on the website (www.cvbdiervoeding.nl) it is described which cell wall components are
actually determined with this method. A better characterisation of cell wall components is
obtained with the Van Soest analysis (see document RD003), in which the contents of NDF, ADF
(or NDADF) and ADL are determined.
From statistical analysis on sample data on CF, NDF, ADF and/or ADL in the CVB database it
appeared that for many feedstuffs there is a reasonable or good relationship between the CF
content and the Van Soest parameters (mainly ADF). Because the CVB database usually
contains a large number of analytical data for CF for each feedstuff, reliable mean values can be
calculated. For the Van Soest parameters, the number of analytical data is relatively small; the
stated Van Soest parameters are (where necessary and possible) calculated with the estimation
equations developed by CVB. A correct estimation of the NDF content is important for a correct
protein validation of the feedstuffs in the framework of the DVE/OEB system 2007 (see paragraph
3.4).
CAD (in meq per kg) = 43.5 Na + 25.6 K - 28.2 Cl - 62.4 (S-i + S-o)
For compound feedstuffs, the EB and CAD values are expressed in meq per kg of product. For
high moisture industrial co-products and roughages the EB and CAD values are given in meq per
kg DM.
In some feedstuffs, the content of inorganic sulphur (S-i) may vary strongly between batches.
This can be seen from the standard deviation (if stated) in S-i content. For certain feedstuffs (e.g.,
whey powders, molasses, vinasse, and other products from fermentation processes) it is known
that the S-i content may vary strongly. In general, high moisture industrial co-products to which
acids have been added for concervation purposes require extra attention. An example of an
added acid is sulphuric acid; if these feedstuffs containing added sulphuric acid are used to feed
monogastric animals the used of the CAD equation is advised.
16
17
Table 2.1 Overview analytical methods
Analysis Description Reference
Dry matter (DM) Dry feedstuffs EC Regulation
The residue after drying at 103 oC until constant 152/2009; ISO 6496,
weight, except for sugar containing feeds (with > 4% 1999
sugars), in which the sample is dried until constant
weight at 80 oC under vacuum
Moisture rich feedstuffs
The residue after drying under vacuum at 80 oC until
constant weight. The sample is spread out over a
sand bed.
Crude ash The residue after incineration at 550 oC EC Regulation
(ASH) 152/2009; ISO 5984,
2002
Crude protein Nitrogen according to Kjeldahl or (except for leaf- Kjeldahl: EC
(CP) rich products such as grass or alfalfa meal) Dumas, Regulation 152/2009;
multiplied by 6.25 ISO 5983-1, 2009 and
ISO 5983-2, 2009
Dumas: EC
Regulation 152/2009
ISO 16634, 2008 and
ISO 16634, 2009
Crude fat The fat is extracted with petroleum ether, boiling EC Regulation
(CFAT; CFATh) range 40 to 60 oC, dried and weighed (= CFAT). 152/2009; ISO 6492,
Although, according to the EG method, since 1999 1999
crude fat should be analyzed with acid hydrolysis in
all feeds (= CFATh) this is not common practice.
Therefore, CVB has determined CFAT with and
without acid hydrolysis for each feedstuff, to
calculate CFATh from CFAT by regression.
Crude fibre (CF) The residue after boiling in diluted sulphuric acid EC Regulation
and diluted caustic potash is incinerated at 152/2009; ISO 6865,
approximately 500 oC; the loss after incineration is 2000
the CF fraction. For fat rich products (> 100 g/kg),
pre-treatment with petroleum ether, boiling range 40
to 60 oC, is required to remove the fat. Products
containing more than 5% CaCO 3 should be pre-
treated with hydrochloric acid.
Nitrogen-free The content of N-free extract is not analyzed, but N.A.
extract (NFE calculated: NFE(h) = 1000 – (moisture + ASH + CP
and NFEh) + CFAT(h) + CF). This implies that all inaccuracies
18
Analysis Description Reference
in the analyses of the five components accumulate
in the NFEh content. In some cases this may result
in a negative NFEh content. A negative NFEh
content may also occur if the factor 6.25 for
calculating crude protein from N is not entirely
correct for a specific feedstuff.
Starch (STAam) To determine starch using amyloglucosidase, a new ISO/DIS 15914, 2004
analytical protocol is available: the sample is
extracted with 40% ethanol (to remove the sugar
fraction), after which the starch in the residue is
gelatinized with DMSO and hydrolyzed with
amyloglucosidase. The glucose released is then
analysed with the enzyme hexokinase.
Glucose oligo- The amount of GOS (starch fragments up to Smits et al., 1994
saccharides approximately 10 glucose units) is determined by
(GOS) analysing the amount of glucose units in two
samples, as follows:
a. Direct analysis of the amount of glucose units
according to the Luff-Schoorl method in the 40%
ethanol soluble fraction
b. Analysis of the amount of glucose units,
according to the Luff-Schoorl method in the 40 %
ethanol soluble fraction, after incubation with excess
amyloglucosidase
The content of GOS is: b - a
For this analysis the total content of SUG is
determined ass well.
19
Analysis Description Reference
equivalents. This analysis gives the sum of
STAam, GOS and SUG
The content of STAam + GOS is: b - a (see
document RD005 on the website
www.cvbdiervoeding.nl). The combined
determination of STAam and GOS is only relevant
for the calculation of the net energy value of (wet)
feedstuff for pigs, and may only be applied when it
is likely that the starch is digested well by enzymes
of the animal itself (in other words, when DCiSTA =
100%).
Sugars (SUG) The content of reducing sugars, present in the 40% 71/250/EEC
ethanol soluble fraction, after inversion, determined
according to Luff-Schoorl.
Acid Detergent The ADF is treated with 72% H 2SO4 (12 Mol
Lignin (ADL) H2SO4/l) during 3 hours at room temperature.
Subsequently, the residue is incinerated and the
loss after incineration is the ADL content.
20
Analysis Description Reference
the ruminant feedstuffs CFAT is the prescribed
method; for feedstuffs where CFATh is the
prescribed method the CFATh value instead of the
CFAT should be subtracted.
Potassium (K) Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) or Atomic ISO 7485:2000; ISO
Emission Spectroscopy (AES) determined content 6869:2000
after incineration and treatment of the ashes with
hydrochloric acid.
Sodium (Na) Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) or Atomic ISO 7485:2000; ISO
Emission Spectroscopy (AES) determined content 6869:2000
after incineration and treatment of the ashes with
hydrochloric acid.
Sulphur (S) In this table two sulphur determination methods are N.A.
given for dry compound feedstuffs and high
moisture industrial co-products:
• inorganic S (S-i)
This is analysed as sulphate (SO4) by extracting
the sample with HCl, centrifuging and filtering,
after which the amount of sulphate is measured,
using ion chromatography, followed by
suppressed conductivity detection. The S
content in sulphate is calculated by dividing by
3: S/SO4 = 32/(32+4*16) = 1/3.
• organic S (S-o)
This is calculated from the S contents of the
amino acids MET and CYS. The calculation is
as follows:
S-o = 32/149* MET + 32/120 * CYS
in which:
32 = atomic mass of S
149 = molecular mass of MET
120 = molecular mass of CYS
MET = MET content in g/kg
CYS = CYS content in g/kg
N.B. It is assumed that the amount of sulphur in
other organic compounds is (very) limited.
Total inositol The content of P that is released after long-term Bos et al., 1993
bound incubation with excess microbial phytase, multiplied
phosphorus (IP) with a factor 1.25. If, for a certain feedstuff, it is
experimentally shown that this inositol bound P
21
Analysis Description Reference
content differs only slightly from the IP-6 content as
determined by HPLC, or if this is likely (based on
other information), all HPLC based analytical results
have also been incorporated in the calculation of the
content of Total inositol-P.
Amino acids Most amino acids are determined using an amino EC Regulation
acids analyzer, after 22 hours of hydrolysis with 6N 152/2009;ISO
hydrochloric acid at 160oC. The amino acids CYS, 13903:2005
MET and TRP are analyzed in separate runs. The
S-containing amino acids CYS and MET are
oxidized with hydrogen peroxide and per-formic acid
prior to the hydrolysis. TRP first undergoes an
alkaline hydrolysis and is then analyzed by HPLC.
Fatty acids The fatty acids composition is analyzed by gas ISO/TS 17764-1:2002
chromatography after alkaline hydrolysis of the fat and ISO/TS 17764-
fraction, followed by methylation. 2:2002
The contents of individual fatty acids are expressed
in g/kg product or g/kg DM. The contents are
calculated from the proportion of a fatty acid in the
total amount of fatty acids and an estimated
proportion of the total fatty acids in the crude fat
fraction. This percentage is also stated.
Volatile fatty The contents of the volatile fatty acids acetic acid FAO Animal
acids (VFA), (AC), propionic acid (PR), and butyric acid (BU), as Production And Health
ethanol (ETH), well as the contents of ethanol (ETH) and lactic acid manual: Quality
lactic acid (LA), (LA) are determined by HPLC, in an extract of the assurance for Animal
acetic acid (AC), fresh product, and then calculated to dry matter. feed analysis
propionic acid laboratories, J. Baltrup
(PR) and buteric et al., Rome, 2011.
acid (BU)
22
3 FEED EVALUATION SYSTEMS FOR RUMINANTS
For ruminants there are four feed evaluation systems established by CVB:
• A feed intake model for dairy cattle (paragraph 3.2)
• An energy evaluation system (paragraph 3.3)
• A protein evaluation system (paragraph 3.4)
• A structure value system (paragraph 3.5)
In which:
FIC = Feed intake capacity (VW/day)
a = Lactation age = parity - 1 + days in lactation/365
d = Days in lactation
g = Days in gestation
0 = Initial feed intake capacity in the 1rst parity (VW/day)
1 = Asymptotic level (maximal increase) (VW/day)
= Rate parameter for the increase of the basic curve
= Maximal level adaptation with regard to the basic curve
= Rate parameter for the increase of the feed intake capacity at lactation start
220 = Gestation parameter
From equation F.H02 it appears that the feed intake capacity, except for a number of coefficients
derived from statistical analysis, depends on the following animal factors: (lactation) age (a), days
in lactation (d), and the number of days that the cow is pregnant (g). These variables must be
inserted for each situation to be calculated.
23
For 0, 1, , and the following values are taken:
0 = 8.743 (VW/day)
1 = 3.563 (VW/day)
= 1.140
= 0.3156
= 0.05889
220 = -0.05529
Inserting these values for 0, 1, , and in equation F.H02 results in:
-0.05889x d
[F.H03] FIC = [8.743 + 3.563 x (1- e−1.140 x a )] x e0.3156 x (1− e )
x (1 − 0.05529x (g/220))
(VW/day)
3.2.2 Correction of FIC for milk production, milk composition and body
weight
While developing the 2007 version of the Feed intake model for dairy cattle, it appeared that the
estimation of the feed intake could be improved for operational applications when the actual milk
production, milk composition, and body weight were taken into account.
The Feed intake model that was introduced in 2002 (Zom et al, 2002) is in fact one of the
modules in the so-called Cow model of Wageningen UR Livestock Research (WUR-LR). This
Cow model contains, besides a prediction equation of feed intake capacity (FIC, below
abbreviated as Ic ˆ ), also equations to predict the milk production in kg per day ( M̂ ), the body
weight in kg ( Ĝ ), and percentages milk fat ( Vˆ ), and milk protein ( Ê ). These equations from the
Feed intake model are not given in this publication, but are available from CVB.
The realized feed intake Ic , milk production M , the actual weight G and the percentages for milk
fat V and milk protein E often deviate from the values predicted for the standard cow.
To correct the feed intake, as calculated with the standard equation F.H03, for the effects of the
differences between realized and predicted values, the following proportional deviations have
been defined:
Ic M G V E
ki = 100 − 1 , km = 100 − 1 , kg = 100 − 1 , kv = 100 − 1 en ke = 100 − 1 .
ˆ
Ic Mˆ Gˆ Vˆ Eˆ
In which:
ki = the sum of all proportional corrections (in % units)
km = the proportional correction for milk production (in % units)
kg = the proportional correction for body weight (in % units)
kv = the proportional correction for milk fat content (in % units)
ke = the proportional correction for milk protein content (in % units)
It is assumed that the deviations in feed intake capacity are related to the deviations in milk
production and composition, and body weight. This is reflected in the model:
It is noted that this is not a prediction model to explain a Y variable, but a model developed to
reduce the prediction error.
The corrected feed intake capacity (FIC corr) is calculated according to:
24
The values for the various k-coefficients are derived from statistical analysis: For all β
coefficients, with exception of β 0 , statistically significant values were obtained, when the full
model, with all mentioned parameters included, was tested. The values for these β coefficients
are also not given in this table, but will be made available by CVB on request.
With regard to the effect on the prediction accuracy of the feed intake capacity, it is noted that this
improved with 5.2% extra explained variation when actual milk production, milk composition, and
body weight were taken into account.
FIC
[F.H07] TDMI = (kg DM /day)
f
p
p x VWp
In which:
TDMI = Total DM intake (kg DM/day)
FIC = Feed intake capacity (VW/day)
fp = Fractional amount of the component in the diet
VWp = Satiety value of the diet (VW per kg DM)
For calculating the satiety value of individual diet components, the following general model is
used:
(λ (x − xp1)+ λp12 (xp1− xp1)2 +....+ λpn1(xpn − xpn )+ λpn2 (xpn − xpn )2 )
[F.H08] VWp = VWp0 x e p11 p1 (VW/kg DS)
In which:
VWp = Satiety value of feedstuff p (VW/kg DM)
VWp0 = Satiety value of feedstuff p at a mean composition of the feedstuff as used in
animal experiments on which the VW is based (VW/kg DM)
pn1, pn2 = Linear and quadratic satiety value parameters of feedstuff p for feed component n
(n= 1, 2,…,n)
x np = Content of feed component n in feedstuff p (g/kg DM)
x np = Mean content of feed component n in feedstuff p in the
animal experiments on which the VW is based (VW/kg DM)
25
red, fresh; Clover, red, ensiled; Maize: CCM, ensiled; Green cereals, fresh; Green cereals,
ensiled; Maize (fodder maize), fresh; Maize (fodder maize), ensiled.
For the equations concerned, the reader is referred to a separate CVB publication, in which also
the calculation rules for all other feed evaluation systems for ruminants are given.
For the other products given in section 9.3 ‘Roughages and related products’ fixed values apply;
these are reported on the product sheets.
For the other wet feedstuffs, also a fixed satiety value of 0.55 is assumed, with the exception of:
• Potato peelings, steamed: 0.45 (because this product contains a lot of (largely)
gelatinised starch)
• High moisture industrial co-products (potato fruit-juice concentrate, potato starch,
brewers’ yeast, distillers solubles, cheese whey, maize solubles) and potato starch, solid:
for these products a satiety value of 0.30 is assumed. This is slightly higher than
calculated using the equation for dry concentrates
• For carrot peelings, steam peeled, the value for fodderbeets is taken.
To calculate the two net energy values (VEM and VEVI value), the following aspects are
important:
• The chemical composition of the feedstuff, especially the contents of crude protein, crude fat,
crude fibre, and N-free extract.
• The faecal digestibility of these components.
• The general equations of the system.
26
3.3.1 Chemical composition of the feedstuff
Mean values for the feed components of interest for the calculation of VEM and VEVI of a
feedstuff can be found on the respective product sheet. In general, chemical analysis of individual
batches is recommended for a more accurate estimation of the energy value.
27
3.3.2.3 Products with low CFAT content
For feedstuffs with low crude fat content (< 15 g/kg DM) the digestibility coefficient of this
component can not be established accurately in digestibility trials. For this type of products, the
DCFAT is derived from the CFAT content with the following equation:
in which:
a = the true digestibility of the CFAT. For most feedstuffs a=90%, except for leaf-rich
plants (e.g., grass meal, lucerne meal), where a = 50%. In leaf-rich plants, a
substantial part of CFAT consists of waxes and other substances that are apparently
digested, but not utilized.
CFAT = the crude fat content in g/kg DM
2.5 = the above mentioned basal endogenous faecal CFAT excretion (in g/kg DMI)
The calculation of VEM and VEVI is based on the contents of metabolisable energy (ME) and
gross energy (GE). The percentage ME in GE is indicated by the letter q.
28
3.3.3.1 Establishing GE, ME and q (general equations)
GE, ME and q are calculated as follows (Benedictus, 1977):
[F.H11] GE (kJ/kg) = 24.14 x CP + 36.57 x CFAT + 20.92 x CF + 16.99 x NFE - 0.63 x SUG*
[F.H13] q = 100 ME / GE
For fresh and conserved forages, the calculation of ME is simplified, according to the following
equation (from 2005 onwards):
[F.H15] ME (MJ/kg DM) = 14.94 DOM + 18.98 CFAT – 1.478 CF – 0.97 SUG
3.3.4 Calculation of the net energy value for milk production and of the
VEM value
The net energy value for milk production (NElac) is calculated as follows:
VEM is a relative energy measure: it uses barley as a reference material. One kg of air-dried
barley with a certain (standardised) composition has a mean net energy value for milk production
(NElac) of 6900 kJ.
The obtained VEM value therefore indicates how much more or less net energy a certain feed
contains compared to the reference material (with a net energy of 6900 kJ per kg).
29
with higher q, the utilization of ME is somewhat improved, and for diets with lower q, the ME
utilization is lower than 60%. This is indicated by the second part of the equation: 1 + 0.004 x (q -
57).
3.3.5 Calculating the net energy value for meat production and the VEVI
value
For meat production, the net energy (in kJ/kg) (NE meat) is calculated as follows:
kf
[F.H19] NE meat = ME
kf − km
+1
APL km
VEVI is a relative energy measure; it uses barley as a reference material. One kg of air-dried
barley with a certain (standardized) composition has a mean net energy value for meat
production (NEmeat) of 6900 kJ.
The relationship between VEVI and NEmeat is as follows:
The obtained VEVI value, therefore, indicates how much more or less net energy the feed
contains compared to the reference material (with a net energy of 6900 kJ per kg).
VEVI is calculated from ME and q as follows:
kf ME
[F.H21] VEVI =
k f − km 6.90
+1
APL km
Correction factors are used to account for differences in utilization of ME for maintenance (km)
and energy deposition (kf):
30
3.3.5.1 Calculating APL
The ratio between the amount of net energy for maintenance + production and the amount of net
energy for maintenance is called Animal Production Level (APL):
A growing cow weighing G kg needs 329.6 G 3/4 kJ 'net energy for maintenance':
The 'net energy for growth' for a daily weight gain of z kg is:
At an average daily gain of 0.9 kg per day, APL is approximately 1.5; this APL is used in the
calculations.
31
percentage.
Example: Rumen undegraded starch yields 0.2346 mol ATP per g. Propionic acid yields 0.2432
mol/g, hence 3.7% more. Propionic acid is absorbed as such. For starch, an energy loss of 20%
due to fermentation is assumed in these calculations. Proceeding from VEM and VEVI values of
1300 and 1505, respectively, the VEM and VEVI values of “100% rumen undegraded starch” are
then 1625 and 1881 per kg, respectively. The VEM and VEVI values of 1 kg pure propionic acid
are then 1.037 x 1625 = 1690 and 1.037 x 1881 = 1950, respectively.
As stated earlier, the net energy value of 1 kg of pure starch (the reference) is set for ruminants at
1300 VEM and 1505 VEVI, whereby it is taken into account that 20% of ATP is lost due to
fermentation in the fore stomachs. For lactic acid and ethanol, an ATP loss of 10% is assumed.
For glucose and saccharose an ATP loss of 30% is assumed.
For glucose, saccharose and starch, the ATP yielding capacity is the same per glucose residue.
However, when glucose molecules are polymerized through glucosidic linkages, one water
molecule is expelled for each molecule of glucose. Therefore, the ATP yielding capacity of a free
glucose molecule is 0.90 x that of a glucose unit in a starch molecule; similarly, for saccharose, a
factor of 0.95 is used.
The energy values that have been derived in this way for organic acids, ethanol, glucose and
saccharose are given in the table “Other feedstuffs”, which is included in the last section of
Chapter 9 (paragraph 9.5) of this publication.
32
• The amount of protein excreted in the faeces, derived from digestive enzymes and cells
from the intestinal wall, including the amount of protein required for the biosynthesis of
this endogenous protein: intestinal digestible metabolic faecal protein (DMFP):
The amount of intestinal digestible rumen undegradable dietary protein is calculated as follows:
In intestinal flow studies (in vivo) it was found that %RUP was on average 11% higher compared
to the value obtained in in sacco experiments. The factor 1.11 corrects for this difference.
In which:
U = undegradable protein fraction (undigestible) (%)
D = potentially degradable protein fraction (digestible) (%)
W = washable protein fraction (%)
kp = passage rate of protein from the rumen (% per hour)
kd = degradation rate of protein in the rumen (% per hour)
33
and other countries. The level of the outcomes often differed, but the ranking of feedstuffs was in
most cases the same as found by IVVO-DLO. Therefore, the results per research institute were
calculated back to the Dutch (IVVO-DLO) level, using linear regression. Subsequently, the mean
values per feedstuff were calculated (Van Straalen and Tamminga, 1990). For feedstuffs for
which no information was available, an estimated value was calculated with the use of
comparable feedstuffs.
The rumen fermentable organic matter (FOM) is calculated by subtracting all components that do
not supply energy to the micro-organisms in the rumen from DOM. These components are:
• Crude fat (CFAT)
• Rumen undegradable protein (CP * %RUP/100)
• Rumen undegradable starch (STA + %RUSTA/100)
• 50% of the fermentation products (FP = acetic acid + propionic acid + butyric acid + lactic
acid + ethanol)
In some cases, where FOM becomes negative, FOM is set to 0 (zero). The DOM (= digestible
organic matter) equals the (apparently) digestible crude protein + digestible crude fat + digestible
crude fibre + digestible N-free extract.
In the calculation of DMCP it is assumed that 150 g microbial protein (N*6.25) may be formed per
kg of fermentable organic matter, that 75% of this microbial protein consists of amino acids, and
that 85% of these amino acids is digestible in the small intestine.
Therefore, DMCP may be calculated from FOM using the following factor:
In the calculation of the fermentable organic matter of some feedstuffs, a correction has been
included for fermentation products that are formed during treatment (e.g., ensiling). The energy
value of some fermentation products (lactic acid, ethanol) is 50% of the energy value of
34
carbohydrates. Therefore, for fermented feedstuffs, 50% of the FP is subtracted from DOM. The
data used in this Table were collected by Steg et al. (1990).
The inevitable faecal protein losses are assumed to depend on the undegraded dry matter intake
(iDM). The undegraded dry matter intake may be calculated from the amount of dry matter minus
the amount of digestible organic matter (DOM) and the amount of digestible crude ash (DASH).
The digestibility of crude ash (%DASH) is, depending on the feedstuff, set to 35, 50 or 65. These
values were - for each feedstuff - derived from the amounts of Na, K, Cl, Ca, Mg and P in the
crude ash. It is further assumed that the digestibility of Na, K and Cl is 100%, and the digestibility
of Ca, Mg and P is 50%.
For the calculation method the reader is referred to CVB series nr 7 (1991). The DASH value in
equation [F.H33] is calculated as follows:
This equation may be used provided that the resulting DASH value does not exceed the MDASH
value in the CVB Feed Table. In other cases, the MDASH value should be used in the calculation.
MDASH is calculated as follows:
In which ASHtable is the crude ash content as given on the product sheet.
Added minerals are supposed to be 50% digestible, without upper limit. Table salt is probably
100% digestible.
The metabolic faecal protein losses are calculated under the assumption that 75 gram of DMCP
is lost per kg iDM.
35
• The intestinal digestibility of methionine in rumen incubation residues after 12 to 18 hours
of rumen incubation appeared to be – slightly but significantly – higher than the CP
digestibility in these residues. For lysine, this was not the case.
To be able to calculate the contribution from microbial protein to the content of intestinal
digestible methionine and lysine, an amino acid pattern of microbial protein had to be established.
After a literature study of published amino acid patterns, CVB composed its own extended
database. Based on this database, the content of methionine and lysine in microbial protein was
set to 2.5 and 7.7 g/100 g AA, respectively.
To account for the methionine and lysine losses in DMCP, a pattern was chosen that was
calculated from the endogenous excretion as determined in sheep by Van Bruchem et al. (1985).
This implies that the methionine and lysine content in DMCP is assumed to be 1.5 and 5.7 g/100
g AA, respectively.
The equations for calculating the content of intestinal digestible methionine (DVMET) then
become:
In which:
DRUMET = methionine contribution from intestinal digestible rumen undegraded dietary protein
(=DRUP)
DMMET = methionine contribution from intestinal digestible microbial protein (=DMP)
DMFMET = methionine contribution from intestinal digestible metabolic faecal protein (=DMFP)
MET = methionine content in the feedstuff (in g per 16 g N = in g per 100 g CP)
For the calculation of the intestinal digestible lysine content (DVLYS) the following equations
apply:
In which:
DRULYS = lysine contribution from intestinal digestible rumen undegraded dietary protein
(=DRUP)
DMLYS = lysine contribution from intestinal digestible microbial protein (=DMP)
DMFLYS = lysine contribution from intestinal digestible metabolic faecal protein (=DMFP)
LYS = lysine content in the feedstuff (in g per 16 g N = in g per 100 g CP)
DRUP, DMP and DMFP are calculated according to the calculation rules within the DVE system.
36
(ISO/DIS 15814) yields better results. In cases where the Ewers method results in artefacts, this
method should in fact not be used. In in situ experiments, an amyloglucosidase method is always
used for starch analysis.
In cases where experimental information on starch undegradability is lacking, the rumen
undegraded starch was estimated, mostly by comparison with similar feedstuffs. When this was
also not feasible, %RUSTA was set at a low level, namely 10%.
Products for which the Ewers method (strongly) overestimates the true starch content are usually
products with (extremely) low true starch content. Therefore, data from in situ incubations are
also lacking. For such products, %RUSTA is set to 0 (zero) in the CVB Feed Table.
The %RUSTA values obtained for compound feedstuffs were multiplied by 0.875 to account for
the effect of pelleting on starch undegradability.
In feedstuffs that underwent high temperature and pressure treatment (e.g., extrusion, expansion
and pressure cooking), starch will be hydrolysed and %RUSTA will be very low. It is assumed
that starch in such products is for 95% degradable in the rumen. %RUSTA is therefore set to 5%.
In cases where %RUSTA is not based on in situ incubations in nylon bags, but is estimated,
%RUSTA is - after correction for pelleting - rounded to a multiple of five.
On the product sheets, %RUSTA is given, including the correction for pelleting.
In which:
%RUP as percentage
ASH, CP and STAam in g/kg DM
37
the rumen and FOMr is calculated in a fundamentally different manner than FOM in the DVE/OEB
1991 system. The other three parameters were not included in the DVE/OEB 1991 system and
provide insight in the dynamics and rate of fermentation in the rumen.
In which:
CP = crude protein (g/kg or g/kg DM)
%RUP = rumen undegradability of the protein (in %)
%DRUP = intestinal digestibility of the undegraded protein (in %)
This calculation slightly differs from the procedure in the DVE/OEB 1991 system (see [F.H28] in
paragraph 3.4.1.1.1; the correction factor 1.11 is dropped).
In which:
S = soluble CP fraction (%)
(W-S) = CP in the small particles fraction
W = washable CP fraction (%)
a For forages and high moisture industrial co-products ‘CP´ should be replaced by ´CPin´, the CP content
including ammonia. In the DVE calculation of high moisture industrial co-products it is assumed that the
ammonia fraction = 0 (and, therefore, that CP = CPin), although (especially after ensilation) a small amount
of ammonia is present.
38
D = potentially degradable CP fraction (%) (D = 100 – W – U)
U = undegradable CP fraction (%)
11 = passage rate from the rumen of the S fraction (% per hour)
8 = passage rate from the rumen of the (W-S) fraction (% per hour)
6 = passage rate from the rumen of the D fraction (% per hour)
200 = rate of CP degradation of the S fraction in the rumen (% per hour)
kdD = rate of CP degradation of the D and the (W-S) fraction in the rumen (% per hour)
The only difference being the passage rate of the D fraction; for forages, this passage rate is
assumed to be 4.5% per hour. For bulbs and tubulars, this rate is 6% per hour.
In which:
0.75 = the amount of true protein in MCPe
0.85 = the intestinal digestibility of the true protein
MCPe = microbial crude protein produced based on the in the rumen available energy (g/kg or
g/kg DM)
The calculation of the amount of MCPe in the DVE/OEB 2007 system, however, differs
completely from the calculation in the DVE/OEB 1991 system. The amount of MCPe produced in
the rumen during fermentation of a feedstuff depends on:
• The type of substrate that is fermented:
Certain substrates yield much more ATP per gram than others.
39
• The type of bacteria that ferment the substrate:
A distinction is made between LAB (= Liquid Associated Bacteria) and PAB (= Particle
Associated Bacteria). The S and (W-S) fractions are fermented by LAB; the D fraction by
PAB.
• The amount of ATP available for the production of bacterial mass:
This is the amount of ATP that is released with the fermentation of a certain substrate minus
the amount of ATP required for ‘bacterial maintenance processes’. This is determined by - on
the one hand - the maintenance requirements of the bacteria, and - on the other hand - by the
residence time of the bacteria in the rumen (the reciprocal of the passage rate). The
maintenance requirement of LAB, expressed as mmol ATP per gram of bacteria per hour, is
much higher than the maintenance requirement of PAB. On the other hand, the residence
time of PAB in the rumen is much longer than the residence time of LAB, so that PAB use
ATP for maintenance for a longer period of time than LAB.
• The proportion of CP per kg of bacterial mass;
• The preying upon bacteria by protozoa.
The following equation is used to calculate the amount of MCPe from an average forage:
In which:
F = the rumen fermented fraction of a certain feed component
(SUG, STA, NDF, RNSP, CP, FP), whereby the subscripts (S, (W-S), D) refer to the
fraction in the nylon bag procedure.
0.174 = the efficiency factor for the utilization of energy from FSSUG to produce MCPe
(similar for all other coefficients)
0.138 = this efficiency factor applies to a D-NDF fraction with a mean degradation rate. The
kp of D-NDF depends on the kd of this fraction; the efficiency factor of FDNDF
therefore depends on the kd. The same applies to the efficiency factor of the
FDRNSP (where the efficiency factor of 0.168 refers to a D-RNSP fraction with a
mean degradation rate).
Please note: For products containing GOS, the GOS fraction should be included in the
calculations in the same manner as the SUG fraction.
The equation for calculating MCPe from a compound feedstuff or a wet feedstuff is similar to
F.H51, except for the efficiency coefficients for FDNDF and FDRNSP: mean values of 0.168 and
0.175, respectively, are assumed. Further, for the FDCP fraction a coefficient for concentrates of
0.126 is used and 0.110 for roughages.
It is noted that the amount of MCPe, calculated according to [F.H51], will be produced only when
OEB is not negative.
The inevitable faecal protein losses are supposed to depend on the indigestible dry matter intake
(iDMI). The indigestible dry matter intake may be calculated from the amount of dry matter (DM)
minus the amounts of digestible organic matter (DOM) and digestible crude ash (DASH).
The digestibility of the crude ash (%dASH) is, depending on the feedstuff, set on 35, 50 or 65.
These values were derived per feedstuff from the contents of Na, K, Cl, Ca, Mg and P present in
40
ASH. It is further assumed that the digestibility of Na, K and Cl is 100%, and that the digestibility
of Ca, Mg and P is 50 %.
More information on the calculation method is given in CVB series nr. 7 (1991).
The DASH value in F.H52 is calculated according to:
This equation may only be used if the resulting DASH value does not exceed the MDASH value
form the Feedstuff Table. If the DASH value is higher, one should use the MDASH value, which is
calculated as follows:
The metabolic faecal protein losses are calculated under the assumption that 75 g DMFP is lost
per kg of DM.
In which:
MCPn = the maximum possible microbial protein synthesis based on available nitrogen
(= CP x (1 - %RUP/100)
MCPe = the maximum possible microbial protein synthesis based on available energy
(the calculation of MCPe is explained in F.H51, paragraph 3.4.2.1.5).
The new protein system also offers the opportunity to check the supply of N and energy at the
rumen level in the short term. Therefore, the OEB-2 is also reported as a parameter, in addition to
OEB as such.
41
The equations for calculating the content of intestinal digestible methionine (DVMET) are as
follows:
In which:
DRUMET = methionine contribution from DRUP (= Digestible Rumen Undegradable Protein)
DMMET = methionine contribution from DMP (= Digestible Microbial Protein)
DMFMET = methionine contribution from DMFP (= Digestible Microbial Faecal Protein)
MET = methionine content in the feedstuff (in g/16 g N, or in g/100 g CP)
To calculate the content of intestinal digestible lysine (DVLYS), the following equations apply:
[F.H60] DVLYS = DRULYS + DMLYS - DMFLYS
[F.H61] DRULYS = LYS/100 x DRUP
[F.H62] DMLYS = 0.077 x DMP
[F.H63] DMFLYS = 0.057 x DMFP
in which:
DRULYS = lysin contribution from DRUP (= Digestible Rumen Undegradable Protein)
DMLYS = lysin contribution from DMP (= Digestible Microbial Protein)
DMFLYS = lysin contribution from DMFP (= Digestible Microbial Fecal Protein)
LYS = lysin content in the feedstuff (in g/16 g N, or in g/100 g CP)
Calculation of DRUP, DMCP and DMFP is done in conformity with the rules of the DVE system.
The kp of the D fraction of starch is for all feedstuffs (including forages) set at 6% per hour.
When compound feeds are (heat) pelleted, the undegradability of starch decreases. In the
DVE/OEB 2007 system, the effect of pelleting is taken into account by assuming a decrease of
the D fraction, because pelleting is supposed to mainly damage the structure of the particles in
the D fraction:
D’ = 0.75 * D and W’ = 100 - D’ (in which D’ = D fraction after pelleting).
For feedstuffs in which the starch is hydrolyzed by heat- or pressure-treatment (e.g., extrusion,
expansion, pressure cooking), the %RUSTA will be very low. F or products with hydrolyzed
42
starch, 95% of the starch is supposed to be degraded in the rumen. The %RUSTA is
therefore set at 5%.
Feed ingredients for which %RUSTA is not based on in situ incubations in nylon bags in the
rumen, but on estimations, %RUSTA is (after applying the correction for pelleting) rounded
off to a multiple of five. On the product sheets, %RUSTA is given including the correction for
pelleting.
The passage rate (kp) of the D fraction of NDF and RNSP is calculated from the relationship
between kp and kd:
43
the complete ration, it was also decided to use (from 2003 onwards) STAam for the required
starch content.
For compound feedstuffs, the SV is, therefore, calculated according to one of the following
equations:
In which:
a = 0.9 – 1.3*(%RUSTA/100)
FSTA = fermentable starch (=STA – RUSTA)
STA = STAam
RUSTA = STAam * %RUSTA/100
All contents in g per kg DM
For the following feedstuffs the SV is calculated according to equation [F.H69]: malt
culms; soybeans, heat treated; soybean hulls; soybean expeller; soybean meal,
rumen bypass; sorghum; tapioca; tapioca starch.
For all other products, SV is calculated according to equation [F.H68]
The structure values of compound feedstuffs apply to materials in milled form, processed into
pellets.
A number of feedstuffs that consist largely of only one Weende component, like oils, fats and
limestone has been assigned a SV of 0.15.
The derived SV for the most relevant wet feedstuffs are given in Table 3.2
44
Table 3.2 Structure value of most relevant moisture rich industrial co-products for
ruminants (SV per kg DM)
For the criteria for the structure value of a ration, the reader is referred to CVB Documentation
report No 23 (CVB, 1998b), or to the most recent version of the CVB Feed Table.
45
4. FEED EVALUATION SYSTEMS FOR PIGS
46
CP digestibility. There was no systematic difference in crude fat digestibility between the old
digestibility values and the recently obtained digestibility values, this also was the case for
differences in NSP(h) digestibility between the old and the new dataset.
The digestible contents (e.g., DCP), calculated according to the above-mentioned product
specific calculation rules, may be divided by the gross nutrient content, and subsequenltly
multiplied by 100 (e.g., 100 * DCP/CP), resulting in the digestibility coefficient for that nutrient (in
this case: DCCP). On the product sheets, the digestibility coefficient of CP, CFATh and NSPh –
applying to the average chemical composition as stated on the product sheet - was calculated
according to this procedure. For batches with a different chemical composition, this digestibility
coefficient will not be correct. In those cases, the digestible nutrient content is better estimated by
using the available specific calculation rules for that product.
For certain chemical components and feedstuffs, some specific remarks concerning the
calculation of the energy value are made below.
in which:
47
a = the true digestibility of the CFATh. For most feedstuffs it is assumed that a =
90%, except for leaf-rich feedstuffs (e.g., grass pellets or meal, alfalfa
pellets or meal), where ‘a’ is set to 50%, because a substantial part of the
CFATh in these feedstuffs consists of waxes and such (which are
apparently digested, but are not utilized).
CFATh = the crude fat content in g per kg DM.
5.0 = the above-mentioned endogenous basal faecal CFATh excretion (in g per
kg DM).
The factor CF_DI in the equation F.V02 (and other equations) is a correction factor to convert the
content of gross total sugars, expressed as glucose equivalents, into the sugar content as
present in the product. Further explanation on the use of this correction factor is given in
paragraph 4.2.3.5. For the calculation of DNSPh and NSPh always STAam should be used and
not STAew (see paragraph 2.3.2).
Maize gluten feed contains substantial (but varying) amounts of lactic acid (LA). For a correct
NSPh calculation the quantity of LA should be subtracted as well. Furthermore, DDGS contains
besided LA also GLYCEROL and therefore in the calculation of NPSh for DDGS the amounts of
LA and GLYCEROL should be subracted. Also dried industrial co-products coming from a wet
procedure might contain products from an incomplete fermentation of starch (with a lenght of 2 –
10 glucose units). These are called glucose-oligosaccarides (GOS) and this fraction must be
analysed seperately as these products are not detected in both the sugar analysis based on the
Luff Schoorl method and the starch analysis based on an amyloglucosidase method or the Ewers
method.
A number of high moisture industrial co-products contain substantial, but varying, amounts of
fermentation products: lactic acid (LA), acetic acid (AC), propionic acid (PR), buteric acid (BU),
ethanol (ETH), and in some cases also GLYCEROL. Also GOS may be present in substantial
amounts in high moisture industrial co-products. Depending on the drying method used, part or all
of the fermentation products LA, AC, PR, BU and ETH may evaporate during the drying process.
In digestibility studies high moisture industrial co-products are freeze dried. The freeze drying
method prevents the evaporation of LA although ETH evaporates completely. Furthermore, using
the freeze drying proces only minimal amounts of the products AC, PR and BU evaporate and the
degree of evaporation can be ranked as follows: BU > PR > AC. The ranking of the amount or
presence of these fermentation products in high moisture industrial co-products is as follows: LA
48
> AC > PR. Considering the inaccuracy of the method used for analysing these fermentation
products, these producs could be analysed in the freeze dried product. However, usually LA, AC,
PR, BU and ETH are analysed in the non-dried product and then these analysed values are
calculated to a DM basis. In order to do this it is important to realise that the accuracy of the DM
method becomes more important at lower DM contents. The concentrations of GLYCEROL and
GOS are, just as for ASH, CP, CFATh, SUG and STAam, analysed in the freeze dried product.
The content of NSHPh in the freeze dried products of high moisture industrial co-products is
calculated using the following equation:
The following nutrients are considered to be 100% digestible: STAam, GOS, SUG, LA, AC, PR,
BU and GLYCEROL. For the calculation of the content of digestible NSPh (DNSPh) the starting
point is the concentration of digestible organic matter (DOM) and from this DOM the digestible
fractions of nutrients are subtracted.
For the dry feedstuffs without LA and GLYCEROL the following equation applies:
In digestibility trials, the digestibility coefficient of the NSPh fraction (DCNSPh) is always
calculated according to the equation:
49
GOS and SUG are analysed in the dried product whereas the fermentation products are analysed
in the non-dried product. The analysed fermentation components in the non-dried product are
then converted to values expressed in the dry matter. The drying methods used in pracise results
in the evaporation of part of the fermentation products. As a rule of thumb around 8% of LA and
50% of AC, PR and BU evaporate whereas GLYCEROL does not evaporate at all. For the
calculation of the NSPh content than the following equation applies:
For the calculation of the DNSPh content the calculated NSPh using equation [F.V07] must be
multiplied with the DCNSPh value (given on the product sheet) / 100.
50
Parameter Explanation Calculation method per feedstuff
digestibility of less than 100% is
assumed (see also paragraph
3.2.3.4)
STAam-f Fermentative degradable starch STAam-f = STAam – STAam-e
SUG-e Enzymatically digestible sugars The content of enzymatically
digestible SUG can be calculated by
the equation: SUG-e = SUG*DCe-
SUG/100. DCe-SUG is not
mentioned in this Feed Table but
can be calculated as follows: DCe-
SUG = (SUG-e/SUG)*100 (see also
paragraph 4.2.3.6)
SUG-f Fermented sugars SUG-f = SUG – SUG-e
CF_DI Correction factor to convert the sugar Value presented on the product
content, expressed in glucose equivalents, sheet
into the sugar mass as present in the
product
FCH Sum of fermented degradable FCH = DNSPh + CF_DI*SUG-f +
carbohydrates STAam-f
PR Propionic Acid
BU Butyric Acid
ETH Ethanol
51
For the stated organic acids, ethanol and GLYCEROL, the net energy value has been derived by
comparing its ATP yielding potential with that of starch and by relating the proportion of the two to
the NE2015 value of starch (see Table 4.2).
The contents of the organic acids and ethanol, as mentioned on the product sheets (also refer to
paragraph 10.2), are determined in the non-dried (‘fresh’) product, and after that accounted for in
the amount of dry matter that remains after drying of the sample. The above mentioned
percentages of evaporation were estimated using literature data, and may in reality deviate from
these values, due to the influence of factors like pH, method of drying and concentration.
Currently there are not enough data available to estimate the extent of evaporation more
accurately. These volatile components are only relevant for a number of high moisture industrial
co-products feedstuffs and for maize gluten feed and DDGS.
Table 4.2 Net energy value and assumed evaporation during drying of some
components mentioned in Equation [F.V08].
Component Description Real contribution Evaporation during
NEv (MJ/kg) drying of sample
GOS Glucose oligosaccharides 14.14 0%
AC Acetic Acid 10.61 50 %
LA Lactic Acid 12.02 8%
PR Propionic Acid 14.62 50 %
BU Butyric Acid 19.52 50 %
ETH Ethanol 20.75 100 %
GLYCEROL Glycerol (Glycerine) 13.83 0%
This equation results in NE2015 values expressed in kJ and can be used for the calculation of
NE2015 on dry matter basis as well as on product basis (only if nutrient contents are expressed on
a similar basis).
52
1. Products in which the starch is completely gelatinized and 100% (enzymatically) degraded in
the small intestine: DCiSTA = 100. This starch has an energetic coefficient of 14.14 MJ/kg.
2. Products in which half of the starch is (enzymatically) degraded in the small intestine and the
other half is fermented in the large intestine: DCiSTA = 50. This implies that half of the
starch is accounted for with the starch coefficient of 14.14 MJ/kg. The other half is integrated
in the fermentative degradable remaining fraction; thus, this part is accounted for using a
coefficient of 9.74 MJ/kg.
3. Products in which virtually all starch is in the native form, which is degraded exclusively by
fermentation in the large intestine: DCiSTA = 0. The energetic coefficient equals 9.74 MJ/kg.
4.2.3.7 The NE2015 equation is based on respiratory trials with growing pigs
The until recently used NEv equation was, just as the earlier NEv equation of Schiemann et al.,
(1971) (where the carbohydrate fraction was partitioned in digestible CF and digestible NFE),
based on results from respiratory metabolism trials with heavy pigs that mainly deposited fat
(Schieman et al., 1971). These NEv equations resulted in overprediction of the true deposited
energy when being used for a more modern pig (Van der Honing et al., 1984). This NE2015
equation is based on respiratory metabolism trials carried out by J. Noblet from INRA (France)
with growing pigs (CVB documentation report 56, 2015).
53
fraction in the ration resulted in a decrease of the physical activity of the animals, and therefore
also the maintenance requirements. Similar research showed that feeding dried sugar beet pulp
also reduced physical activity. Therefore, the energy value of sugar beet pulp products in practice
is higher than calculated with equation [F.V08] or [F.V09]. For rations containing up to 15 % dried
sugar beet pulp or pressed sugar beet pulp (fresh and ensiled), the energy value should be
calculated as follows:
[F.V10] Energetic utility value = NE2015 (calculated according to [F.V08] or [F.V09] + 3.9 x DNSPh
with Energetic utility value and NE2015 in kJ/kg, DNSPh in g/kg (dried sugar beet pulp), or
Energetic utility value and NE2015 in kJ/kg DM and DNSPh in g/kg DM (pressed sugar beet pulp)
The NE2015 and EW2015 values, as mentioned on the product sheets of sugar beet pulp products,
have been calculated using this equation.
Although the calculated NE2015 value of a diet is higher than the NEv value of the same diet it has
still been decided to maintain the in the old NEv system used conversion factor of 8.8.
54
The energy values that are derived in this way for fermentation products, glucose and sucrose for
different animal categories are given in paragraph 10.5 ‘Miscellaneous’.
55
4.3.2.1 Origin of endogenous losses
The digesta not only contains amino acids from undigested feed protein, but also from undigested
proteins of endogenous origin.
The non-digested endogenous protein fraction is composed of proteins from:
• undigested enzymes from digestive juices,
• desquamated epithelium cells,
• the mucus,
• bacterial protein, arising from fermentation.
Therefore, the undigested endogenous protein that leaves the small intestine, can be subdivided
as follows:
where:
uCPi-endogenous = total amount of undigested endogenous protein that passes the ileum.
uCPi-basal = amount of undigested basal endogenous protein (expressed as g/kg ingested
feed) at the end of ileum.
uCPi-specific = amount of undigested endogenous protein (g/kg feed), induced by feed
specific factors, at the end of the ileum.
The ‘basal endogenous protein’ is the endogenous protein that is secreted into the
gastrointestinal tract due to the passage of “feed”. More information on how to take the excretion
of undigested basal endogenous protein into consideration when evaluating ileal protein and
amino acids is given in paragraph 4.3.4.
In the feed, factors may be present that induce an additional secretion of (specific) digestive
enzymes, the production of more mucus proteins that cover the epithelium of the intestinal lumen,
and/or an extra sloughing off of the epithelium of the small intestine. The most important feed
specific factors that cause the secretion of specific endogenous proteins, belong to the so-called
“Anti Nutritional Factors” (ANF’s), that can be found in, for instance, legume seeds. Also, fibre-
rich feedstuffs cause damage to the mucus layer and hence will lead to an increase in undigested
mucus proteins.
Currently it is not possible, in practice, to correct for the amount and the amino acid profile of the
undigested specific endogenous protein, when evaluating ileal protein and amino acids, with the
use of specific calculation rules.
56
{(AA intake) - (AA that leave the ileum undigested - AA endogenous)} x 100
(AA intake)
Table 4.3 Composition of basal endogenous protein that leaves the terminal ileum
undigested (contents in g/kg dry matter intake).
Crude protein 11.43 Leucine 0.47
Lysine 0.39 Tyrosine 0.29
Methionine 0.11 Valine 0.53
Cystine 0.21 Alanine 0.49
Threonine 0.59 Aspartic Acid 0.78
Tryptophan 0.14 Glutamic Acid 1.17
Isoleucine 0.37 Glycine 0.90
Arginine 0.39 Proline 1.10
Phenylalanine 0.32 Serine 0.65
Histidine 0.18
The apparent protein or amino acid digestibility that has been corrected for the excretion of
undigested basal endogenous protein is usually called ‘standardized digestibility’ (see [F.V15]):
{(AA intake) - (AA undigested at end ileum - AA undigested basal endogenous protein)} x 100
(AA intake)
With the amino acid content and apparent digestibility determined in digestibility trials, and the
above-mentioned amino acid losses through basal endogenous protein, the values for the
standardized ileal digestibility (StaVCi) of the crude protein and the amino acids have been
calculated for the various feedstuffs for pigs. In this table, for each individual feedstuff, the content
of ‘standardized ileal digestible protein/AA’ and the content of ‘apparent ileal digestible
protein/AA’ both are given.
57
In literature a large number of digestibility trials has been described where the raw material to be
studied was the only source of protein in the diet. By adjusting the apparent ileal digestibility of
the diet in these cases for the basal endogenous production that is caused by the fraction of
protein free feedstuffs, the apparent ileal digestibility of the examined protein source is obtained.
After this correction, these data were also included in the database.
Different digestibility trials in the database, conducted with different batches of the same
feedstuff, show some variation with respect to the apparent digestibility of amino acids. This is
partly due to differences in digestibility between batches. For another part the variation is due to
differences in protein content and the analyzed amino acid profile in different batches. Assuming
an equal digestibility for the feed protein, these last differences lead to variations in the
contribution of the undigested endogenous protein in the total pool of undigested protein in the
digesta. By converting the reported apparent digestibility to standardized digestibility, values are
obtained for the digestibility of protein/amino acids that do not depend on the fluctuations of
protein or amino acids contents in the feedstuff, at an equal digestibility of the feed protein.
For each raw material, the standardized digestibility of protein and amino acids has been
calculated according to this method.
Because of the fact that the passage of dry matter leads to (at least) the excretion of undigested
basal endogenous protein, for protein free materials (such as fat, starch, sugar), a negative value
- instead of zero digestibility - is obtained for the digestibility. This negative digestibility value
equals the basal ileal endogenous excretion.
Apart from the above-mentioned literature screening by ILOB-TNO, for some feedstuffs additional
information has become available and incorporated in the database.
For a number of feedstuffs, (practically) no data were available. In those cases where also
equations are given for the calculation of NEv, the ileal crude protein and amino acids digestibility
of these feedstuffs has been estimated. In all cases, this applies to feedstuffs that are
quantitatively less important in pig feeds.
Based on the data that are available at present, it may be assumed that separately added free
amino acids have a true ileal digestibility of 100%. A correction per kg for the excretion of basal
endogenous protein is needed to make comparisons based on apparent ileal digestibility. Also,
the fact that synthetic amino acids are sometimes put on the market in the form of salts should be
taken into account: In these cases, only part of the product consists of the amino acid, and one
should proceed from the amino acid content in the product, as guaranteed by the manufacturer.
58
4.3.7 Requirements of standardized and apparent ileal digestible amino
acids
For the requirements of standardized and apparent ileal digestible amino acids for pigs in various
stages of growth and production, please refer to the most recent version of the CVB Tables
Animal Nutrition.
It is up to the user of this Table to decide whether he will use standardized or apparent ileal
digestible amino acids in diet equationtion. However, it is emphasized that one has to make
one and the same choice for both the supply of ileal digestible amino acids by the feed,
and the requirements of the animals.
Then the experimental StaDCP values per feedstuff were averaged and the average values are
presented on the product sheets. In case, for a feedstuff, there were less than 5 records the
average value was rounded to the closest fivesome.
To make a comparison possible between digestible P values used in previous editions and the
present StaDCP values as well the apparent digestible coefficents (AppDCP) are presented.
These AppDCP were calculated as follows: a) the P concentration on the product sheet in g/kg is
calculated based on the DM content presented on the product sheet to concentration of P in g/kg
DM; b) using the presented StaDCP and the P content expressed in g/kg DM the concentration of
standardized digestible P (StaDP is calculated; c) from the StaDP the quantity of endogenous P
(0.20 g/kg DM) is subtracted in order to calculate the concentration of apparent digestible P
(AppDP) is calculated; d) using the P concentration in g/kg DM and the value for AppDP the
percentage of apparent digestible P (AppDCP) can be calculated.
For a number of feedstuffs, that are less relevant for pigs, little or no observational data
concerning digestibility of P are known; sometimes the digestibility of P was estimated and
derived from that of related feedstuffs.
Information on dietary phosphates is included in paragraph 10.4 (Mineral feedstuffs). A
distinction has been made between mono- and dicalcium phosphates (hydrous and anhydrous),
and other dietary phosphates.
Some vegetable feedstuffs contain considerable amounts of the enzyme phytase, which is
capable of (partially) releasing inositol bound phosphorus and thus making it absorbable. Also,
products have been available, for several years now, containing phytase of microbial origin.
59
Phytase has a strong positive effect on the P digestibility of feedstuffs of vegetable origin.
However, the temperature sensitivity and pH dependence of these enzymes has to be taken into
consideration. When during steam pelleting the temperature of the pellet exceeds 80oC, the
phytase activity may decrease strongly, depending on the type of phytase preparation (e.g.,
whether the enzyme is coated or not). The pH dependence can be of importance when organic
acids are added to the compound feed or ration, or when wet feedstuffs are provided that contain
wet fermented feedstuffs. The exact relationship between the pH in the ration and the
effectiveness of vegetable phytase in the relevant pH range, however, is not yet known. With
respect to the relationship between pH of the ration and microbial phytase, one should consult the
supplier of the phytase product concerned.
In the values, as listed in the Table, it is assumed that there is no endogenous phytase activity
present in the feedstuff. This approach is of importance for barley, rye, wheat, triticale and their
co-products. Whenever values for the digestibility of P without pelleting were available (and
therefore in the presence of natural phytase activity), these are noted as a comment on the
product sheet.
60
5. FEED EVALUATION SYSTEMS FOR POULTRY
5.1 Feed evaluation systems
In this Chapter the feed evaluation systems of CVB for poultry are described. For poultry, three
types of feed evaluation systems have been established by CVB:
• Energy systems (paragraph 5.2)
• A protein / amino acids system (paragraph 5.3)
• A digestible phosphorus system (paragraph 5.4)
The experiments performed to establish the MEpo-value of feedstuffs were also used to verify the
digestibility coefficients derived from the available data. When the equation:
[F.P01] MEpo (MJ/kg) = (18.03 x DCP + 38.83 x DCFAT + 17.32 x DNFE) / 1000
or
(with the contents of DCP, DCFAT and DNFE in grams per kg)
led to an MEpo differing from the value derived from animal experiments, the digestibility figures
were adjusted in the CVB Feed Table according to the deviation.
For most feedstuffs it is common practice to predict the MEpo value directly from their chemical
composition, using a product specific regression equation. Nevertheless, also for these
feedstuffs, the product sheet states the digestibility coefficients in the column ‘Cocks’. When
these digestibility coefficients are adequately attuned to the product composition, equation F.P01
or F.P02 should result in approximately the same MEpo value as the product specific regression
equation. However, from 1991 onwards, the composition of many feedstuffs has more or less
changed. Because in many cases information on nutrient digestibility was no longer available,
digestible nutrient contents could no longer be updated according to these data. Instead, an
adjustment of the digestible nutrient contents based on a rational approach was pursued, to
61
obtain similarity between the MEpo value calculated using equation F.P01 or F.P02, and the
MEpo value calculated via the product specific equation.
Calculation of the ME value with the product specific equations remains the preferred method.
In some cases, also the digestible nutrient contents have been adjusted of products for which no
product specific equation exists, because the formerly in CVB tables stated values (mostly based
on limited research) could not always be rationally explained.
Adjustment of the digestible crude protein content according to the method described above, and
deriving (faecal) amino acids digestibility from crude protein digestibility, also leads to an
adjustment of the stated content of (fecal) digestible amino acids.
Results of animal trials performed by COVP-DLO, INRA (Tours, France) and PRC (Rosslin,
Scotland) could be used for this analysis.
When the MEpo value for a feedstuff was calculated using a product specific regression equation,
derived in this way, equations F.P01 or F.P02 were subsequently used to adjust the digestibility
coefficients to this MEpo value.
The regression equations below apply to MEpo values and contents (g per kg DM).
• Barley
• Oats
• Tapioca
62
• Sunflowerseed products (CF < 280 g/kg DM)
• Soybean meal and soybean expeller (for 154 ≤ CP ≤ 706; 29 ≤ CF ≤ 369; 4 ≤ CFAT ≤ 85
(in g/kg DM)
B. In a number of cases, the digestibility data were not suitable for regression
calculation. The chemical composition could be divided into, e.g., three
groups that were sufficiently representative for some qualities. By solving
equations, a linear curve was calculated using the means of those three
groups. This curve was then used to estimate the MEpo value
• Cottonseed products
• Sorghum
This regression line could not be included in the Table. It was, however, used to calculate the
MEpo value of the low tannin sorghum type that have been included in this Table.
D. Other equations:
63
C16:0 = g palmitic acid per 1000 g total fatty acids
C18:0 = g stearic acid per 1000 g total fatty acids
This equation applies to the MEpo calculation of fats and oils, and not for mixtures of fatty acids.
[F.P18] MEla (MJ/kg) = (18.03 x DCP + 44.65 x DCFAT + 17.32 x DNFE) / 1000
or
5.2.2 Broilers
5.2.2.1 General
From comparative research at the former COVP-DLO (Beekbergen, The Netherlands) it
appeared that the feeding value of fat for broilers is lower than for adult roosters. Also for other
materials differences in ME values were found between broilers and adult roosters, although
these differences were generally smaller than for fat. In 1990, this has led to the implementation
of a separate ME evaluation (MEbr) for broilers (CVB series no 1, 1990). The table published at
that time included the results of the digestibility research from COVP-DLO on raw materials that
were the main constituents of practical broiler diets. In practice, however, doubts existed
concerning the valuation for various feedstuffs. In the nineties, this led to extensive basic
research, aimed at the equationtion of a standard protocol for digestibility trials with broilers. After
completion of this protocol, the faecal nutrient digestibility of a large number of feedstuffs has
been determined. In this edition of the Feed Table, the results of four projects studying the
digestibility of feedstuffs for broilers have been implemented, to obtain a better estimation of
MEbr for the feedstuffs concerned. In this Table, the MEbr equation that was introduced in 1991
is abandoned, and a new equation is introduced with the same energetic coefficients as used in
the MEpo equation (see paragraph 5.2.2.3.1). A third adjustment that is introduced from this
edition onwards concerns the calculation of the digestible carbohydrates fraction (see paragraph
5.5.5.3.2).
64
5.2.2.2 Digestibilities
The digestibility coefficients are derived from trials with young broilers, executed by order of CVB,
according to the CVB protocol for faecal digestibility trials with broilers. In this study, the
digestibility of organic matter (OM), crude protein (CP), crude fat (CFATh) and - in many cases -
also starch (STA) was determined. The feedstuffs investigated in this study have been analysed
for DM, ASH, CP, CFATh, CF, SUG, and STAam.
[F.P20] MEbr (MJ/kg) = (15.56 * DCP + 38.83 * DCFATh + 17.32 * DNFEh) / 1000
Or:
This equation is derived from multiple regression analysis on the results of a COVP-DLO study,
executed in the nineteen eighties, investigating the nutritional value of 15 important feedstuffs. In
this study, the digestibility of CP, CFATh and NFE was determined, and the ME value (corrected
to N balance) was also assessed. The regression model contained the amounts of digestible
crude protein, crude fat and N-free extract as explanatory variables. From this study it was found,
that the coefficients for digestible fat and digestible N-free extract did not differ markedly from the
coefficients that had been derived from a comparable study with adult roosters.
Ever since the introduction of the above-mentioned MEbr equation, discussion has arisen
concerning the correctness of the energetic coefficient for DCP in this equation – this coefficient
cannot be explained physiologically. Assuming a gross energy content for protein of 23.6 MJ/kg,
a complete metabolisation of protein to water, carbon dioxide, uric acid (and urea), a complete
excretion of uric acid (and urea) with excreta, and a ‘gross energy value of uric acid, calculated to
CP’ of 5.6 MJ/kg, the ME coefficient for protein should amount to approximately 18 MJ/kg. It is
also unlikely that the ME value for digestible crude protein with broilers – assuming complete
metabolisation – should differ from that with adult roosters and laying hens.
Multiple regression on the results of the various trials that were performed by order of CVB to
establish the digestibility and ME value of feedstuffs for broilers, and regression analysis on the
total database, revealed that the derived energetic coefficient was always higher than the
previously used coefficient of 15.56 (equation [F.P20]). It should also be stressed that this
coefficient was always lower than 18.03, the energetic coefficient for DCP in the MEpo equation.
Although no satisfactory explanation was found for the latter, it was decided to calculate MEbr
using an energetic coefficient for DCP of 18.03 MJ/kg.
When determining the fat digestibility, crude fat was analysed in feed and in excreta after acid
hydrolysis. To calculate MEbr, one should always use CFATh.
65
digestibility coefficient for the NFE fraction does not account for the variation in composition of the
NFE fraction.
At first, CVB aimed to divide the NFE fraction in a starch fraction (STA), a sugars fraction (SUG),
and a non starch polysaccharides fraction (NSP), according to the procedure used for pigs. In
poultry, however, the digestibility of the NSP fraction is low. Also, the (D)NSP fraction is a
calculated fraction, implying that all (mainly analytical) errors accumulate in the (D)NSP fraction.
Thirdly, the factor 6.25, used to calculate crude protein content from analysed N content, is too
high for a number of feedstuffs. This implies that part of the NSP fraction is contained in the CP
fraction. Especially in protein-rich feedstuffs, this may be a considerable amount. For these
reasons, this option was abandoned.
The SUG fraction in feedstuffs consists of enzymatically digestible and fermentative degradable
sugars. Excreta of animals fed with a relatively SUG-rich feed contain hardly any sugars,
indicating that the SUG fraction is highly digestible. Of dietary starch, also only a few percents
were recovered from the excreta. It was assumed that all glucose equivalents retrieved from the
excreta were derived fron undigested starch. It is, however, not clear whether the fermentation
products - that are formed in the caeca as a result of microbial degradation of fermentable sugars
and of ileal undigestible starch – are completely absorbed, or partly excreted with the excreta.
Also, in the caeca, some fermentation will occur of (mainly water soluble components in) the NSP
fraction. Based on these considerations, it was decided to define the digestibility of the
carbohydrates fraction as follows:
Or:
66
digestibility was estimated by comparing the chemical composition and other characteristics of
that feedstuff to comparable feedstuffs of which sufficient digestibility data with broilers were
available. These detailed calculation rules are not provided in the Feed Table, but have been
included – together with other calculation rules for feed evaluation of poultry – in a separate CVB
publication, entitled ‘CVB Calculation Rules Feed Evaluation Systems Poultry 2011’
(Documentation report no 57).
In developing the estimation equations, it was always investigated which other components affect
the digestibility of a certain component. In developing equations for digestible crude protein
(DCP), also a basal endogenous faecal excretion of 9.7 g CP per kg DMI was always accounted
for.
Dividing the digestible contents (e.g., DCP) – as calculated by means of the above-mentioned
product-specific calculation rules – by the gross nutrient content, and subsequently multiplying by
100 (e.g., DCP/CP*100), the digestibility coefficient of that nutrient (e.g., DCCP) is obtained. On
the product sheets, the digestibility coefficients for CP, CFAT and (STA+SUG) is given, belonging
to the average chemical composition as also stated on the product sheet. For batches with a
deviant composition, this digestibility coefficient is not entirely correct; in those cases, the
digestibility coefficient is better estimated by using the specific calculation rules for that product.
The digestibility of pure fats is strongly dependent on the fatty acid composition. Based on a
study, commissioned by the CVB, it appeared that the digestibility of fat (DCCFAT) could be
predicted well with the following formula:
With (C16:0 + C18:0) in percent units of the total fatty acid fraction
For animal products (meat meal, fish meal) it is assumed that the NFEh fraction is largely an
artefact. Many times negative values are calculated for the NFEh fraction. These negative values
for NFEh can be the result of converting an analysed nitrogen content to a CP value (CP = 6.25 *
N) as this conversion value of 6.25 may not be correct. In all evaluation systems in which the
NFEh fraction is used for calculating energy values it is assumed that the DCNFEh of animal
products is equal to the DCCP value. In the updated MEbr system a basal fecal endogenous loss
of CP is assumed of 9.7 g per kg DM. Therefore it is not correct to use the the DCCP value of
animal products also as a value for DCNFEh because in that case the calculated basal fecal
endogenou CP loss is used twice in the same feed. Therefore, for broilers the following
calculation rule is used. First a combined DCP and DNFEh fraction is estimated: (DCP + DNFEh)
= a*(CP + NFEh) – 9.7 (all values expressed in DM and where a = the standardized digestibility
of the animal product). Then the combined DC(CP + NFEh) is calculated: DC(CP + NFEh) =
(DCP + DNFEh) / (CP + NFEh) * 100. This means that the value for DCCP for animal products is
the value for DC(CP + NFEh).
5.3.1 Feedstuffs
In 2017 two CVB documentation reports (CVB documentation reports nr. 60 and 61) were
published. In CVB documentation report nr. 60 the amount and amino acid composition of basal
endogenous losses at the terminal ileum of broilers were estimated based on a meta-analysis on
a large number of published scientific studies. In CVB documentation report nr. 61 a Table is
published with standardized ileal digestible amino acid coefficients for a wide range of feedstuffs
for poultry. This Table is based on 1) a large dataset of published studies in which amino acid
digestibilities for a large number of feedstuffs for poultry were determined and 2) on the in CVB
documentation report nr. 60 established amount and amino acid composition of basal
endogenous losses at the terminal ileum of broilers.
67
These standardized ileal digestible amino acid coefficient values for a wide range of feedstuffs for
poultry are presented in this Table and replace the apparent fecal digestibility amino acid values
of feedstuffs for poultry that were shown in the CVB Feed Tables since 1979.
From the research done by ID-DLO it was determined that broilers are capable of (partially)
releasing P from inositol phosphate present in feedstuffs of vegetable origin. Furthermore, it was
established that this breakdown depends on the DPpo (and Ca) level in the feed; this implies that
a correction is needed to convert the P digestibility values as measured under standardized
conditions (DPpo) into P digestibility values for practical conditions (diets containing 3.0 DPpo/kg
and 6.8 g Ca/kg) (cDPpo). For this correction, relationships are applied that have been derived
from ID-DLO research, where the faecal P digestibility under standard conditions was compared
to the ileal P digestibility at practical DPpo and Ca levels for eight feedstuffs (CVB, 1997). For
feedstuffs of animal origin and for feed phosphates, such a correction is not needed.
The (c)DPpo values given in this Table have all been based on research by ID-DLO. Feedstuffs
of vegetable and of animal origin, as well as feed phosphates were included in this study. For a
number of feedstuffs, little to no observations concerning the P digestibility are known. In those
cases, the P digestibility was derived from related feed ingedients, or was estimated. The
estimation was based on an P digestibility value for non-inositol-bound P of 80% and usually a
low breakdown of inositol-phosphate was assumed.
Information on feed phosphates is included in this Table in a separate Appendix. In general, a
distinction is made between mono- and dicalcium phosphates (water containing or dry), and other
feed phosphates.
Some feedstuffs of vegetable origin contain considerable amounts of the enzyme phytase, which
is capable of (partially) releasing P from inositol phosphate. This may have a favourable effect on
the P digestibility of these feedstuffs. One should, however, take into account the temperature
sensitivity and pH dependency of the enzyme. Steam pelleting, leading to pellet temperatures
above 80 oC, causes the endogenous phytase activity to drop dramatically.
The table values are based on the assumption that no phytase is present in the feedstuff. This
approach is of interest for barley, rye, rye products, wheat, wheat by-products and triticale. The P
digestibility values that apply when these products are offered without prior heat pelleting
processes are given in a section ‘Points of attention’, given after the product sheets for compound
feedstuffs.
Although the P digestibility values are based on broiler research, they are also applied for other
types of poultry. In the case of laying hens, comparative research is the foundation for the
application of these values and for the determination of requirements.
68
Concerning P requirements, refer to the CVB Documentation report no 20, where the final
digestible P system is described (CVB, 1997).
On the product sheets, the content of digestible phosphorus (DPpo) is stated in the column
“Roosters/Laying hens”; this value is of course also applicable for broilers.
69
6. FEED EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR RABBITS
[F.K.01] ADEr (MJ) = (23.85 x DCP + 37.8 x DCFAT + 16.3 x DCF + 17.1 x DNFE) / 1000
The value of protein is overestimated in this system: the factor 23.85 MJ per kg DCP assumes
that all digestible amino acids are deposited in body protein. In reality, the digested protein is only
partly (30-50%) deposited in body protein, while the remaining nitrogen is excreted via the urine,
mainly as urea. The digestible energy, corrected for N balance, may be calculated using the
following equation:
[F.K.02] OEk (MJ) = (19.0 x DCP + 37.8 x DCFAT + 16.3 x DCF + 17.1 x DNFE)/1000
OEk in MJ/kg; the contents of DCP, DCFAT, DCF and DNFE in g per kg
This equation was used to calculate the energy value of feedstuffs in this Table.
Only for alfalfa meal or pellets it proved possible to derive a reliable relation between variation in
chemical composition and nutrient digestibility. This equation is also used for grass meal or
pellets.
For the other feedstuffs, it was not possible to relate quality and chemical composition on the one
hand, and nutrient digestibility on the other hand. For the relevant by-products of maize and
70
wheat, the digestibilities of nutrients have been related to the crude fibre content (based on a
limited amount of data), as has been done for other animal species. For various feedstuffs no
digestibility figures have been determined using rabbits. In those cases, estimated values are
given, by comparison with related feedstuffs and/or other animal species.
71
7. FEED EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR HORSES
* The subtraction for sugars only applies to feedstuffs with more than 80 g sugars per kg DM.
CP, CFAT, CF, NFE and SUG are expressed in g/kg DM
• Forages
[FE.03] DE (kJ/kg DM) = (0.034 – 1.1 + 0.9477*DCOM) / 100*GE
• Concentrates
[FE.04] DE (kJ/kg DM) = (0.034 + 1.1 + 0.9477*DCOM) / 100*GE
During the development of the EWpa system, a critical evaluation has taken place with respect to
72
the digestibility coefficients of organic matter for horses (%dOMh) that were obtained.
For feedstuffs with known OM digestibility – obtained from digestibility studies with horses – the in
vivo established %dOMh was used to calculate the digestibility of gross energy. This concerns
lucerne (alfalfa), red clover, and some compound feedstuffs.
The existing equation from the VEP system (CVB Documentation report no 15, 1996) was used
by CVB internally as an aid to estimate the %dOMh of wheat and wheat byproducts.
During re-evaluation of the existing database, new estimation equations were developed within
the EWpa system to estimate the %dOMh of lucerne (alfalfa) and for artificially dried grass,
based on chemical parameters:
• Artificially dried grass and lucerne (alfalfa) (mash, pellets, and pressed in bales)
[FE.06] DCOM (%) = 82.1 – 0.087*CF (CF in g/kg DM)
For a number of feedstuffs or groups of feedstuffs, however, insufficient digestibility trials with
horses have been performed to follow this procedure. In those cases, the digestibility of the
organic matter was estimated based either on results of digestibility trials with wethers or pigs
(see below), or by comparison of the feedstuff with similar feedstuffs.
For the estimation of DCOM from wether data, the following equation for fresh grass and hay has
been developed, based on results from digestibility trials with wethers and horses in the
Netherlands and France:
This equation is used to estimate DCOM for fresh grass and hay, because the equation has been
derived from these feedstuffs, but also for grass silage.
By comparing the outcome of this equation to the available data on digestibility of fodder maize
for horses, the following equation has been derived for fodder maize (fresh and ensiled):
In drafting the feedstuffs table, equation [FE.07] was also applied for a number of products with
unknown DCOM, but with a known DCOMw. In this respect, however, there is a difference with
the previous VEP system: in the VEP system, this equation was used for all feedstuffs with
unknown in vivo determined DCOM, but known DCOMw. In the EWpa system, care was
exercised in applying equation [FE.05] in those cases where the chemical composition of the
feedstuff differed markedly from that of fresh grass and grass hay. In each case, the calculated
value of DCOM was compared with the DCOMw (the basis for the calculation), and with the
DCOMp (= digestibility coefficient of organic matter for pigs). In cases where this comparison led
to the conclusion that the calculated DCOM did not yield a logical value, the DCOMw and the
DCOMp were regarded as more valuable than the outcome of equation [FE.07].
In Tables 2 and 3 (Chapter 5), a ‘*’ sign is used to indicate that the stated coefficients have not
been established with horses, and the stated value should be regarded as indicative.
73
diet, and the protein content.
For all feedstuffs, the following equation applies:
Forages
[FE.10] km = (65.21 – 0.0178*CF + 0.0181*CP + 0.0452*(STA+SUG)) / 100
Cereal byproducts
[FE.12] km= (94.41 – 0.0237*OM – 0.0022*CP + 0.0121*(STA+SUG)) / 100
Byproducts from oil processing (1): peanut products, cottonseed products, coconut products,
palm kernel products, sunflower seed products
[FE.13] km = (67.03 – 0.004261*CP + 0.01566*(STA+SUG)) / 100
Byproducts from oil processing (2): linseed products, rapeseed products, soy products
[FE.14] km = (68.04 – 0.004261*CP + 0.01566*SUG) / 100
When an equation contains STA, the STAam content (in g/kg DM) should be used. The
calculated km may be very high for products containing large amounts of sugars or starch,
therefore, it was decided to set a maximum value for km of 0.85, the same value as for glucose
and lactic acid.
During the development of the VEP system it appeared that fat-rich feedstuffs were
underestimated in the UFC system. Incorporating the ME of CFAT with a km of 0.80 (instead of
74
the km calculated for the complete feedstuff) gives a better valuation of CFAT. The ME content of
CFAT is calculated as follows:
Equation [FE.17] is applied to all feedstuffs, with the exception of vegetable and animal fat; for
these feedstuffs a fixed km (0.80) is applied as follows:
In accordance with the approach taken in the VEM system and EW system for ruminants and
pigs, respectively, this net energy value is calculated - for application in practice - to an energy
value for horses (EWpa). EWpa is calculated with the energy value of oats as a reference. One
kg of oats of average quality contains 8.93 MJ NEm per kg DM. The EWpa of 1 kg oats dry
matter is set to 1.000. The EWpa of any given feedstuff is then derived as follows:
Because all calculations are performed with contents in the DM, the outcome of equation [FE.19]
should be corrected with the DM content of the product, to yield the EWpa per kg of product:
75
Table 1 Overview of equations used to calculate EWpa
Calculation GE DE ME/DE km NEm NEm -> EWpa EWpa (DM) ->
method EWpa (product)
1 FE.01 FE.03 FE.9 FE.10 FE.17 FE.19 FE.20
2 FE.01 FE.04 FE.9 FE.11 FE.17 FE.19 FE.20
3 FE.01 FE.04 FE.9 FE.12 FE.17 FE.19 FE.20
4 FE.01 FE.04 FE.9 FE.13 FE.17 FE.19 FE.20
5 FE.01 FE.04 FE.9 FE.14 FE.17 FE.19 FE.20
6 FE.02 FE.03 FE.9 FE.10 FE.17 FE.19 FE.20
7 FE.01 FE.04 FE.9 FE.15 FE.17 FE.19 FE.20
8 FE.01 FE.04 FE.9 FE.16 FE.17 FE.19 FE.20
76
8. Literature references
Anonymous. 1989.
European Table of Energy Values for Poultry Feedstuffs. Subcommittee Energy of the
Working Group nr. 2 of the European Federation of Branches of the World's Poultry Science
Association.
Benedictus N., 1977.
Een nieuw netto-energiesysteem voor herkauwers. Bedrijfsontwikkeling, januari 1977 en april
1977.
Bos, K.D., C. Verbeek, C.H.P. van Eeden, P. Slump en M.G.E. Wolters (1991).
Improved determination of phytate by ion-exchange chromatography. J. Agric. Food Chem.,
39 (1991) 1770 - 1772
Bos, K.D., J. Jetten, H.A.W. Schreuder en J.C. Venekamp (1993).
Enzymatische bepaling van het totaal aan inositolfosfaat in veevoedergrondstoffen.
Rapportnummer B 93.105, TNO Voeding, Zeist.
Bruchem, J. van, et al (1985)
Digestion of proteins of varying degradability in sheep. 3. Apparant and true digestibility in the
small intestine; ileal endogenous flow of N and amino acids. Neth. J. Agric. Sci., 33 p. 285-
295.
CVB, 1989.
Gehalten aan vetzuren in veevoedergrondstoffen. CVB-rapport nr.1. Publ. CVB, Lelystad.
CVB, 1990.
Omzetbare energie slachtkuikens; voorlopige OE-tabel. CVB-reeks nr.1 Publ. PVVr, Den
Haag.
CVB, 1991.
Eiwitwaardering voor herkauwers: het DVE-systeem. CVB-reeks nr.7 Publ. PVVr, Den Haag
CVB, 1993.
Netto energie van voedermiddelen voor varkens; argumentatie en onderbouwing van de
nieuwe NEv-formule. CVB-documentatierapport nr. 7.
CVB, 1993:
De voedingsbehoeften van konijnen voor vleesproductie. L. Maertens, CVB
Documentatierapport 8.
CVB, 1996:
Protocol voor een faecale verteringsproef met hamels.
CVB, 1997.
Definitief systeem Opneembaar Fosfor Pluimvee. CVB report nr.20. Publ. CVB, Lelystad.
CVB, 1998a.
Berekening van het gehalte aan darmverteerbaar methionine en lysine in voedermiddelen
voor herkauwers. CVB-documentatierapport nr. 22.
CVB, 1998b.
Structuurwaardesysteem herkauwers. CVB-documentatierapport nr. 23.
CVB, 2004.
Het EW-pa en VREp systeem. CVB-documentatierapport nr. 23.
CVB, 2005.
CVB Protocol voor een fecale verteringsproef met groeiende, intacte vleesvarkens.
CVB, 2007a.
Voeropnamemodel Melkvee, Versie 2007. CVB-documentatierapport nr. 51.
CVB, 2007b.
Eiwitwaardering voor herkauwers: DVE/OEB 2007 Systeem. CVB-documentatierapport nr. 52.
CVB, 2015a.
A new Dutch Net Energy formula for feed and feedstuffs for growing and fattening pigs. CVB
Documentation report nr. 56.
CVB, 2015b.
Energy requirement for maintenance in growing pigs. CVB-documentation report nr. 57.
CVB, 2016.
Phosphorus and calcium requirements of growing pigs and sows. CVB-documentation report
77
nr. 59.
CVB, 2017a.
Amount and amino acid composition of basal endogenous protein losses at the terminal ileum
of broilers. CVB-documentation report n. 60.
CVB, 2017b.
Table ‘Standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids in feedstuffs for poultry’. CVB-
documentation report nr. 61.
EEG, Analyserichtlijnen EEG.
Es A.J.H. van en Y. van der Honing, 1977.
Het nieuwe energetische voederwaarderingssysteem voor herkauwers: wijze van afleiding en
uiteindelijk voorstel. IVVO-rapport nr. 92.
GfE (Gesellschaft für Ernährungsphysiologie), 2005.
Standardised precaecal digestibility of amino acids in feedstuffs for pigs – methods and
concepts. Proc. Soc. Nutr. Physiol. 14 (2005) 185 -201.
Honing Y. van der, A.W. Jongbloed, B.J. Wieman en A.J.H. van Es, 1984.
Verslag van de studie naar benutting van beschikbare energie van rantsoenen overwegend
bestaande uit granen of bijproducten door snelgroeiende mestvarkens. IVVO-rapport nr. 164.
Huisert H. en S.F. Spoelstra, 1988.
Bepaling van vluchtige vetzuren en ethanol in kuilextracten. Intern rapport IVVO nr.247.
ISO, Normvoorschriften ISO/DIS.
INRA, 2004.
Tables of composition and nutritional value of feed materials, 2nd revised and corrected
edition
Janssen W.M.M.A., E.M. Steenland, L. Maertens, D.F. Wolters en H.E.B. Branje, 1990.
Literatuuronderzoek van de verteerbaarheid van grondstoffen voor konijnen. Spelderholt
uitgave nr. 539.
Jansman, A.J.M., W. Smink en P. van Leeuwen (1997)
Amount and composition of basal endogenous crude protein at the terminal ileum of pigs.
ILOB/TNO rapport nr. I 96-31026.
Jonge, L.H. de en A. van Berkum (1995).
Bepaling van melkzuur in extract van voer, darm-, pens- en mestmonsters met
vloeistofchromatografie. Intern rapport ID-DLO nr. 427
Jonge, L.H. de en J.W. Wijdenes (1993).
Bepaling van alcoholen en vluchtige vetzuren in silagemonsters. Intern rapport IVVO-DLO
nr. 362
Kuhla, S. en Ebmeyer, C. (1981).
Untersuchungen zum Tanningehalt in Ackerbohnen. Arch. Tierernährung 31, 573-588.
Maertens, L. en G. de Groote, 1981.
De verteerbaarheid van luzernemeel bepaald door middel van verteringsproeven met
slachtkonijnen. Landbouwtijdschrift 34, 79-92.
NEN, Normvoorschriften NNi.
Schaefer, J., 1990.
Resultaten van de enquete naar de door de deelnemers toegepaste methoden voor het
pakket vetzuurpatroon. KDLL-rapport R 90.021.
Scheele C.W., 1985.
De voederwaarde voor pluimvee van verschillende soorten vet op uiteenlopende leeftijden. In:
"Voedervetten", uitgave van het Centrum voor Onderzoek en Voorlichting voor de
Pluimveehouderij "Het Spelderholt", Beekbergen.
Scheele C.W., P.J.W. van Schagen en A.J.H. van Es, 1985.
De energiebenutting van leghennenvoeders. COVP-publicatie 005.
Schiemann R., K. Nehring, L. Hoffmann, W. Jentsch en A. Chudy, 1971.
Energetische Futterbewertung und Energienormen. Publ. VEB, Berlijn.
Smits B., A.H. van Gelder, R. Jongbloed en J.W. Cone, 1994.
Samenstelling van de koolhydraatfractie in aardappelpersvezels, aardappelstoomschillen,
Bondatar, myceliumspoeling, restgist en tarwe-indampconcentraat; een oriënterende studie.
Intern rapport ID-DLO no. 417.
Soest P.J.van, 1976.
78
Development of a comprehensive system of feed analyses and its application in forages. J.
Anim. Sci. 26-119-128.
Zom, R., J. van Riel, G. André en G. van Duinkerken (2002)
Voorspelling van de voeropname met het Koemodel-2002, Praktijk Rapport Rundvee 11.
9. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Unit Description
%DASH % Digestibility of Crude Ash
%DRUP % Intestinal digestibility of rumen undegraded dietary protein
%FA % Percentage of a certain fatty acid in total fatty acids
%RUP % Undegradability of dietary protein; percentage rumen undegraded
protein
%RUSTA % Undegradability of starch; percentage rumen undegraded starch
%StaiDC % Standardized ileal digestibility coefficient
<=C10 g Fatty acids with 10 C atoms or less
>=C20 g Fatty acids with 20 C atoms or more
AA g Amino acid(s)
AC g Acetic acid
ADEr Apparent digestible energy rabbits
ADF g Acid detergent fibre
ADL g Acid detergent lignin
ALA g Alanine
ANF Antinutritional factor(s)
APL Animal production level
ARG g Arginine
ASH g Crude ash
ASP g Aspartic acid
ATP mol Adenosine triphosphate
BU g Butyric acid
BW kg Body weight
BW0.75 kg Metabolic body weight
C12:0 g Lauric acid
C14:0 g Myristic acid
C16:0 g Palmitic acid
C16:1 g Palmitoleic acid
C18:0 g Stearic acid
C18:1 g Oleic acid
C18:2 g Linolic acid
C18:3 g Linolenic acid
Ca g Calcium
CAD meq/kg Cation-anion difference
cDPpo Corrected digestible Phosphorus poultry
CF g Crude fibre
CF_DI Correction factor for disaccharides
CFAT g Crude fat
CFATh g Crude fat after acid hydrolysis
79
Abbreviation Unit Description
Cl g Chlorine
Co g Cobalt
CP g Crude protein
Cu g Copper
CYS g Cystine
D % Potentially degradable fraction
DASH g Digestible ash
DC % Digestibility Coefficient
DCCF % Digestibility of Crude Fibre
DCCFAT % Digestibility of Crude Fat
DCCFATh % Digestibility of Crude Fat after acid hydrolisis
DCCP % Digestibility of Crude Protein
DCCPh % Digestibility of Crude Protein in horses
DCiSTA % Ileal Digestibility of STAam
DCNFE % Digestibility of NFE
DCNFEh % Digestibility of NFEh
DCOM % Digestibility of Organic Matter
DCOMp % Digestibility of Organic Matter for pigs
DCOMw % Digestibility of Organic Matter for wethers
DCPpi % Digestibility of P (Phosphorus) in pigs
DCPpo % Digestibility of P (Phosphorus) in poultry
DC(S+S) % Digestibility of (STAam + SUG)
DE MJ Digestible energy
DM g Dry matter
DMCP Intestinal degradable microbial crude protein
DMFLYS Lysine contribution from DMFP
DMFMET Methionine contribution from DMFP
DMFP g Intestinal digestible metabolic faecal protein; that part of DVE that is
lost in endogenous faecal protein
DMI kg Dry matter intake
DMLYS Lysine contribution from DMP
DMMET Methionine contribution from DMP
DMP g Intestinal digestible microbial protein; (part of DVE)
DMSO Dimethyl Sulphoxide
DPpi g (Faecal) digestible Phosphorus in pigs
DPpo g (Faecal) digestible Phosphorus in poultry
DRULYS Lysine contribution from DRUP
DRUMET Methionine contribution from DRUP
DVE g DarmVerteerbaar Eiwit; intestinal digestible protein
DVLYS g DarmVerteerbaar Lysine; Intestinal digestible lysine
DVMET g DarmVerteerbaar Methionine; Intestinal digestible methionine
EB meq/kg Electrolyte Balance
ETH g Ethanol
EW Energy value pigs = NEv (in MJ) / 8.8 MJ
80
Abbreviation Unit Description
EW2015 Energy value pigs = NE2015 (in MJ) / 8.8 MJ
EWpa Energy value horses = NEm (in MJ) / 8.93 MJ
FA Fatty acids
Fe g Iron
FCH g Fermentative degradable carbohydrates
FIC Feed intake capacity
FOM g Fermentable Organic Matter (Calculated from DOM, from which
rumen undegraded protein, rumen undegraded starch and crude fat
are subtracted)
FOMr g Fermentable organic matter in the rumen (Based on the
quantification of rumen fermentable components from in situ
experiments)
FOMr2 g Organic matter that is fermented in the rumen during the first two
hours in the rumen
FOMr2/FOMr g Ratio between FOMr2 and FOMr
FSTA g Fermentable starch (= STA - RUSTA)
FP g Fermentation products (LA+AC+PR+BU)
FTU Phytase units
g Gram
GE MJ Gross energy
GLU g Glutamic acid
GLY g Glycine
GOS g Glucose oligosaccharides
HIS g Histidine
HPLC High performance liquid chromatography
iDM g Indigestible dry matter
iDMI Indigestible dry matter intake
ILE g Isoleucine
IP g Inositol bound phosphorus
IP/P % Inositol bound phosporus as a percentage of total phosphorus
IV Iodine value
J g Iodine
K g Potassium
kcal Kilocalories
kf ME-utilization for energy growth
kg Kilogram
kJ Kilojoule
km ME-utilization for maintenance
LA g Lactic acid
LAB Liquid associated bacteria
LEU g Leucine
LYS g Lysine
MCPe Microbial CP produced, based on the available energy in the rumen
MCPn Microbial CP produced, based on available nitrogen in the rumen
MDASH g Maximal amount of digestible crude ash
ME MJ / kcal Metabolizable energy
81
Abbreviation Unit Description
MEbr MJ / kcal Metabolizable energy for broilers
MEla MJ / kcal Metabolizable energy for laying hens
MEpo MJ / kcal Metabolizable energy for poultry
meq milli equivalents
MET g Methionine
MFP Metabolic faecal protein
mg Milligram
Mg g Magnesium
MJ Megajoule
Mn g Manganese
Mo g Molybdeen
N g Nitrogen
Na g Sodium
NDADF ADF content in NDF
NDF g Neutral detergent fibre
NE MJ Net energy
NElac MJ Net energy value for milk production
NEmeat MJ Net energy value for meat production
NEm MJ Net energy value for maintenance
NEv MJ Net energy value for fat accretion in pigs
NE2015 MJ Net energy value for pigs for growth; introduced in 2015
NFE g N-free extracts, with CFAT subtracted (so: 1000 – (moisture + ASH
+ CP + CFAT + CF)
NFEh g N-free extracts, with CFATh subtracted
NPN g Non protein nitrogen
NSP g Non starch polysaccharides = 1000 – (moisture + ASH + CP +
CFAT + STAam + GOS + CF_DI*SUG + 0.92*LA +
0.5*(AC+PR+BU) + GLYCEROL)
NSPh g Non starch polysaccharides = 1000 – (moisture + ASH + CP +
CFATh + STAam + GOS + CF_DI*SUG + 0.92*LA +
0.5*(AC+PR+BU) + GLYCEROL)
OEB g Onbestendig Eiwit Balans; rumen degraded protein balance
OEB-2 g OEB two hours after feed intake
OEk Metabolisable energy for rabbits
OM g Organic matter
P g Phosphorus
PAB Particle associated bacteria
PDV Product Board Animal Feed
PHE g Phenylalanine
PR g Propionic acid
PRO g Proline
q %ME in GE
RNSP 9 Remainder NSP fraction, after subtracting NDF from NSP (RNSP =
NSP – NDF)
RNSPh 9 Remainder NSPh fraction, after subtracting NDF from NSPh (RNSP
= NSPh – NDF)
82
Abbreviation Unit Description
RUP g Rumen undegraded dietary protein
RUSTA g Rumen undegraded starch
S g Sulphur
S % Soluble fraction
sd Standard deviation
sdc Corrected standard deviation
SER g Serine
S-i g Inorganic sulphur
S-o g Organic sulphur
STA Starch
STAam g Starch determined by amyloglucosidase
STAam-e g Enzymatically digestible starch
STAam-f g Fermentable degradable starch
STAew g Starch determined according to Ewers
STAtot g STAam plus GOS
SUG g Sugars
SUGe g Enzymatically digestible sugars
SUGe/SUG % Ratio indicating which percentage of the total SUG content consists
of enzymatically digestible SUG
SUGf g Fermentable degradable sugars (= SUG – SUGe)
SW Structuurwaarde; Structure Unit
TDMI Total dry matter intake
THR g Threonine
TRP g Tryptofaan
TYR g Tyrosine
U % Undegradable fraction
uCP i-basal g/kg Amount of undigested basal endogenous protein (expressed as g/kg
ingested feed) at the end of ileum
uCPi-endogenous Total amount of undigested endogenous protein that passes the
ileum
uCPi-specific Amount of undigested endogenous protein (g/kg feed), induced by
feed specific factors, at the end of the ileum
VAL g Valine
VEM Voedereenheden voor melkproductie; Feed unit milk production
VEVI Voedereenheden voor vleesproductie; Feed unit meat production
VFA Volatile fatty acids (sum of Ac, Pr and Bu)
VW VerzadigingsWaarde; Fill Unit
W % Washable fraction
Zn g Zinc
83
10. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND FEEDING VALUES OF
FEEDSTUFFS
84
Compound feedstuffs
1
Barley 1005.000/0/0
Weende analysis and carbohydrates (g/kg)
DM ASH CP CFAT CFATh CF NFE NFEh
mean 873 21 102 18 27 47 685 677
sdc 8 2 8 2 1 5 - -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.5 3.2 2.4 1.1 4.9 0.1 1.0 0.1 1.0
sdc 0.1 0.3 - 0.1 0.7 0.0 - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 70
Remarks
Barley:
1. The StaDCP of barley including endogenous phytase activity is 43%.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.7 6.3 4.7 2.7 8.0 0.2 1.0 0.1 1.2
sdc - 1.0 - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 70
Remarks
Barley feed, high grade:
1. The StaDCP of barley feed, high grade includes endogenous phytase activity.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.6 4.1 3.1 1.7 7.7 0.2 1.4 0.2 1.1
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 70
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.9 1.5 0.4 0.4 2.6 3.6 3.9 0.1 0.8
sdc 0.8 0.1 - 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.8 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.7 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.3 4.3 6.8 0.1 0.7
sdc 0.2 0.2 - 0.1 0.3 0.7 - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.5 1.7 - 0.2 2.7 5.8 3.4 - 5.2
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Bloodmeal, spray dried:
1. Processing this product in feeds for pigs, poultry and ruminants is not allowed (EC No 999/2001).
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 177.7 82.3 - 3.2 2.2 6.4 10.0 - 1.8
sdc 8.4 3.5 - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Remarks
Bone meal:
1. Processing this product in feeds for pigs, poultry and ruminants is not allowed (EC No 999/2001).
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.7 1.9 0.6 0.6 2.7 6.8 11.3 0.2 1.1
sdc 0.1 0.2 - - 0.3 0.6 0.9 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 3.5 4.6 3.0 1.8 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 2.3
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.0 10.6 - 1.8 18.1 3.3 1.6 0.3 2.9
sdc - 1.2 - - 1.7 - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.4 4.5 2.9 1.5 3.6 - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 4.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 8.3 0.1 1.8 - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.8 5.3 - 0.2 1.2 0.5 1.6 - 6.5
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 10.9 1.2 - 1.0 5.3 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.4
sdc 2.9 0.4 - 0.2 1.0 0.4 0.1 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 14.9 1.0 0.4 1.2 9.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
sdc 1.8 0.2 - 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 55
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.8 5.5 2.8 3.1 21.2 0.6 6.2 0.4 1.5
sdc 0.2 0.2 - 0.2 1.2 0.1 - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.0 5.4 2.7 3.1 21.1 0.8 6.2 0.5 1.5
sdc 0.3 0.4 - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.5 5.7 2.8 3.3 21.0 0.6 6.3 0.5 1.6
sdc - 0.3 - - - - 0.7 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.4 11.2 8.4 5.2 14.7 0.1 0.3 0.5 3.3
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.2 10.2 7.6 5.1 14.4 - 0.3 0.5 2.9
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.3 10.3 7.7 5.2 14.5 - 0.3 0.5 2.4
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.2 7.5 5.6 5.0 9.4 - - - 3.2
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.4 6.8 5.1 3.2 11.1 2.9 - - 1.6
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.2 10.7 8.0 5.9 15.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 3.5
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.0 10.2 7.7 5.6 15.2 0.7 0.4 0.5 2.9
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.1 10.8 8.1 6.0 16.0 0.6 0.4 0.5 2.4
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.2 8.2 2.5 3.1 11.4 2.3 - - 1.9
sdc 0.0 0.6 - - 0.9 0.6 - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
DDGS, Maize:
1. For the calculation of NE2015 and EW2015 the nutrient contents of LA and Glycerol should be included.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - 8.4 2.5 - - - - - 2.5
sdc - 0.6 - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
DDGS, Wheat:
1. For the calculation of NE2015 and EW2015 the nutrient contents of LA and Glycerol should be included.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - 0.2 0.4 - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - 0.2 0.4 - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - - - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - 0.2 0.4 - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - - - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - 0.2 0.4 - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - - - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - - - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - - - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - - - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - - - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - 0.2 0.4 - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - - - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 96
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - - - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - - - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - - - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - 0.2 0.4 - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 5.0 2.8 - 0.4 1.0 0.8 1.6 0.1 12.4
sdc 0.8 0.7 - 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.6 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 60
Remarks
Feather meal, hydrolysed:
1. Processing this product in feeds for pigs, poultry and ruminants is not allowed (EC No 999/2001).
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.6 4.6 2.3 1.8 15.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 1.2
sdc 0.2 0.4 - - - - 0.4 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 40.1 26.4 - 2.3 6.4 10.5 15.2 0.7 4.7
sdc - - - 0.4 - 2.9 4.9 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Remarks
Fish meal, treated-CP < 600 g/kg:
1. In the EU, processing of this product in feeds for pigs and poultry is allowed but it is forbidden to process this product in feeds
for ruminants.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 40.3 26.0 - 2.3 8.1 10.5 15.2 0.7 5.3
sdc 6.2 3.6 - 0.4 1.8 2.9 4.9 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Remarks
Fish meal, treated-CP 600 - 650 g/kg:
1. In the EU, processing of this product in feeds for pigs and poultry is allowed but it is forbidden to process this product in feeds
for ruminants.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 38.0 24.9 - 2.3 9.4 10.5 15.2 0.7 5.5
sdc 5.4 1.8 - 0.4 2.0 2.9 4.9 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Remarks
Fish meal, treated-CP 650 - 690 g/kg:
1. In the EU, processing of this product in feeds for pigs and poultry is allowed but it is forbidden to process this product in feeds
for ruminants.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 27.2 21.9 - 2.3 14.7 10.5 15.3 0.7 5.9
sdc 9.7 2.5 - 0.4 2.9 2.9 5.0 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Remarks
Fish meal, treated-CP > 690 g/kg:
1. In the EU, processing of this product in feeds for pigs and poultry is allowed but it is forbidden to process this product in feeds
for ruminants.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 5.3 3.2 0.2 2.0 24.1 2.6 7.3 3.4 0.7
sdc 1.0 0.6 - 0.4 5.6 1.0 4.5 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 50
Remarks
Grass meal-CP < 140 g/kg:
1. This product may be contaminated with sand / soil; this is the case when the ASH content is higher than approximately 75 g/kg
DM.
2. The content of sugar may vary considerably, depending on conditions for growth and harvesting.
3. The botanical composition of this product class mostly differs from the other classes. therefore, for this class the values of VEM
and VEVI are calculated differently from the other classes.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 5.3 3.6 0.2 2.4 27.3 2.6 7.3 3.4 0.9
sdc 1.0 0.4 - 0.3 4.4 1.0 4.5 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 50
Remarks
Grass meal-CP 140 - 160 g/kg:
1. This product may be contaminated with sand / soil; this is the case when the ASH content is higher than approximately 75 g/kg
DM.
2. The content of sugar may vary considerably, depending on conditions for growth and harvesting.
3. In calculating the feeding value for ruminants the cutting date is assumed to be first of July (day 91).
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 5.3 3.8 0.2 2.6 29.1 2.6 7.3 3.4 1.0
sdc 1.0 0.4 - 0.3 4.4 1.0 4.5 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 50
Remarks
Grass meal-CP 160 - 200 g/kg:
1. This product may be contaminated with sand / soil; this is the case when the ASH content is higher than approximately 75 g/kg
DM.
2. The content of sugar may vary considerably, depending on conditions for growth and harvesting.
3. In calculating the feeding value for ruminants the cutting date is assumed to be first of July (day 91).
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 5.3 3.9 0.2 2.5 31.5 2.5 7.2 3.4 1.2
sdc 1.0 0.5 - 0.4 4.8 0.9 4.5 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 50
Remarks
Grass meal-CP > 200 g/kg:
1. This product may be contaminated with sand / soil; this is the case when the ASH content is higher than approximately 75 g/kg
DM.
2. The content of sugar may vary considerably, depending on conditions for growth and harvesting.
3. In calculating the feeding value for ruminants the cutting date is assumed to be first of July (day 91).
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - - - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 6.3 6.8 - 0.6 7.0 6.7 6.1 - 4.0
sdc 3.2 1.6 - 0.2 0.5 0.6 - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Greaves meal:
1. Processing this product in feeds for livestock animals is prohibited in the EU.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.3 4.8 3.1 3.1 9.9 0.2 0.4 0.4 3.0
sdc 0.9 1.1 - 0.4 2.9 - 0.2 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.2 4.7 3.1 3.0 9.8 0.2 0.4 0.4 2.7
sdc 0.9 1.1 - 0.4 2.9 - 0.2 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.3 4.8 3.1 3.1 9.9 0.2 0.4 0.4 2.2
sdc 0.9 1.1 - 0.4 2.9 - 0.2 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.8 6.4 4.2 3.5 12.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 2.9
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.8 6.5 4.2 3.5 12.7 0.2 0.2 0.4 3.3
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.8 6.4 - 3.5 12.5 0.2 0.2 - 3.0
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.0 4.4 2.8 1.7 5.4 - 0.2 - 1.8
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.5 4.2 2.8 2.8 13.0 2.2 0.5 0.4 1.5
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.5 8.1 - - - - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.1 5.1 2.8 1.2 12.1 0.1 1.0 0.3 1.3
sdc 0.2 0.8 - 0.2 1.4 0.0 - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.5 5.1 2.8 1.6 13.2 0.1 0.7 0.3 1.4
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.8 3.8 2.1 1.1 9.4 0.1 1.4 0.2 1.0
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.4 5.3 3.7 3.5 7.4 0.3 0.6 0.2 1.9
sdc 0.7 0.5 - 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.4 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Remarks
Linseed:
1. The DCCFATh for pigs only applies for linseed that has been grinded very well so that the structure of all fat cells is destroyed
so that the fat inside the cells can be digested well.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 3.5 8.2 5.8 5.4 12.1 0.9 1.3 0.8 3.0
sdc 0.3 0.4 - 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.4 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 3.1 8.4 5.9 4.5 10.9 0.8 1.1 0.8 2.8
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 9.1 2.4 0.1 1.5 18.0 0.9 5.3 2.1 0.6
sdc 2.7 0.4 - 0.3 5.6 0.5 1.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 50
Remarks
Lucerne (alfalfa) meal-CP < 140 g/kg:
1. This product may be contaminated with sand / soil; this is the case when the ASH content is higher than approximately 85 g/kg
DM.
2. This product is usually naturally dried (sun-cured).
3. The feeding value for ruminants is calculated without an adjustment for cutting date.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 15.8 2.5 0.1 1.8 26.0 0.8 5.3 2.1 0.9
sdc 3.5 0.4 - 0.2 3.8 0.4 1.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 50
Remarks
Lucerne (alfalfa) meal-CP 140 - 160 g/kg:
1. This product may be contaminated with sand / soil; this is the case when the ASH content is higher than approximately 85 g/kg
DM.
2. The feeding value for ruminants is calculated without an adjustment for cutting date.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 16.1 2.7 0.1 1.9 27.3 0.9 5.3 2.1 1.0
sdc 4.6 0.4 - 0.2 4.0 0.5 1.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 50
Remarks
Lucerne (alfalfa) meal-CP 160 - 180 g/kg:
1. This product may be contaminated with sand / soil; this is the case when the ASH content is higher than approximately 85 g/kg
DM.
2. The feeding value for ruminants is calculated without an adjustment for cutting date.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 15.5 2.8 0.1 2.2 29.4 0.9 5.3 2.1 1.1
sdc 5.2 0.6 - - 3.0 0.5 1.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 50
Remarks
Lucerne (alfalfa) meal-CP > 180 g/kg:
1. This product may be contaminated with sand / soil; this is the case when the ASH content is higher than approximately 75 g/kg
DM.
2. The feeding value for ruminants is calculated without an adjustment for cutting date.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.3 3.4 1.7 1.6 8.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 1.7
sdc 0.3 0.7 - 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 85
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.3 3.5 1.8 1.7 8.1 0.4 0.5 0.6 2.0
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 85
Remarks
Lupins-CP > 335 g/kg:
1. Depending on variety the content of manganese (Mn) may be higher than 1000 mg/kg.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.0 2.5 2.1 0.9 3.3 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.8
sdc 0.0 0.2 - 0.2 0.3 0.0 - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.3 4.7 3.6 - - - - - 1.0
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.2 0.7 0.5 - 1.2 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.8
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.6 4.0 3.0 1.9 5.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.9
sdc 0.6 0.7 - 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.1 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.5 3.9 2.9 2.4 6.2 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.9
sdc 0.4 1.7 - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.5 5.2 3.6 2.2 4.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 2.3
sdc - 0.3 - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.1 4.0 - 1.0 4.1 0.0 0.4 - 1.3
sdc - - - - - - 0.1 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Remarks
Maize germs-STAew < 200 g/kg:
1. The DCCFATh for pigs only applies for the situation when the fat has been made very well accessible to lipases by means of
thorough grinding and pelleting.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.5 11.2 - 3.6 15.0 0.1 - - 1.2
sdc - 1.6 - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Remarks
Maize germs-STAew > 200 g/kg:
1. The DCCFAT for pigs only applies for the situation when the fat has been made very well accessible to lipases by means of
thorough grinding and pelleting.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.9 4.2 3.0 2.9 1.4 0.4 1.2 - 2.0
sdc 0.3 - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.7 9.5 6.6 3.6 12.4 3.2 2.1 1.0 1.7
sdc 0.4 0.8 - 0.4 1.5 1.5 0.6 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Remarks
Maize gluten feed-CP < 200 g/kg:
1. For the calculation of NE2015 and EW2015 the nutrient content of LA should be included.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.1 9.6 6.7 3.7 12.1 3.2 2.1 1.0 1.9
sdc 4.6 0.8 - 0.4 1.4 1.5 0.6 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Remarks
Maize gluten feed-CP 200 - 230 g/kg:
1. For the calculation of NE2015 and EW2015 the nutrient content of LA should be included.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.9 9.5 6.7 3.6 11.2 3.2 2.1 1.0 2.2
sdc 1.0 0.8 - 0.4 0.8 1.5 0.6 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Remarks
Maize gluten feed-CP > 230 g/kg:
1. For the calculation of NE2015 and EW2015 the nutrient content of LA should be included.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.3 4.6 3.2 0.5 1.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 6.0
sdc 0.4 1.0 - 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - 0.4 0.0 - - - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.3 2.9 2.5 1.0 3.5 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.8
sdc 0.5 0.3 - - 0.3 - 0.1 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.1 8.0 2.4 3.3 11.0 5.2 2.1 - 2.2
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Remarks
Maize, distillers solubles, dried:
1. Because STAam is missing feeding values are calculated based on STAew.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.8 5.0 1.2 1.6 12.6 0.4 3.4 - 1.2
sdc - 0.2 - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.8 5.6 1.4 1.6 12.5 0.4 3.4 - 1.4
sdc - 0.4 - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 130.1 62.5 - 2.6 3.1 6.3 4.0 - 2.2
sdc 10.3 5.7 - 0.2 0.8 1.1 1.5 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Remarks
Meat-and-bone meal-CFATh < 100 g/kg:
1. Processing this product in feeds for pigs, poultry and ruminants is not allowed (EC No 999/2001).
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 129.3 62.2 - 2.6 3.1 6.3 4.0 - 2.2
sdc 10.2 5.7 - 0.2 0.8 1.1 1.5 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Remarks
Meat-and-bone meal-CFATh > 100 g/kg:
1. Processing this product in feeds for livestock animals is prohibited in the EU.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 9.4 7.6 - 3.5 12.4 3.4 7.4 0.2 2.1
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 93
Remarks
Milk powder, whole:
1. SUG is represented as glucose units. Lactose = 0.95 * SUG.
2. SUGe/SUG for pigs only applies when lactose containing diets are fed on a regular basis; otherwise SUGe/SUG = 0.
3. For the digestibility of the NFE fraction in poultry complete fermentation of lactose (present in limited amounts in the diet) is
assumed.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 12.6 10.2 - 4.7 16.5 4.6 9.9 0.3 2.8
sdc 0.6 0.2 - 4.9 0.3 0.6 - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Milkpowder, skimmed:
1. SUG is represented as glucose units. Lactose = 0.95 * SUG.
2. SUGe/SUG for pigs only applies when lactose containing diets are fed on a regular basis; otherwise SUGe/SUG = 0.
3. For the digestibility of the NFE fraction in poultry complete fermentation of lactose (present in limited amounts in the diet) is
assumed.
4. Nutrient contents and feeding values in denaturated skimmed milk powder can be calculated from the mixing ratios of skimmed
milk powder and the substance used for the denaturation process.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.1 2.8 1.8 1.3 3.0 - 1.2 - 1.2
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.2 3.3 2.1 1.4 3.5 - 1.2 0.1 1.3
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.1 41.0 7.2 4.3 - 0.1
sdc 0.6 0.6 - - 5.8 1.5 1.7 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Molasses, sugarbeet:
1. SUG is represented as glucose units. Sacharose = 0.95 * SUG.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 7.9 0.7 0.1 2.7 41.0 1.5 18.5 8.3 0.1
sdc 1.3 - - - 6.7 0.7 3.9 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Molasses, sugarcane-SUG < 475 g/kg:
1. This class of molasses may be mixed with vinasse.
2. SUG is represented as glucose units. Sacharose = 0.95 * SUG.
3. The S-i content of this product is variable; for a correct calculation of the CAD value of a batch the S-i content should be
analyzed.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 6.8 0.6 0.1 2.7 28.8 1.0 21.7 8.2 0.1
sdc - - - - 6.5 0.5 1.7 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Molasses, sugarcane-SUG > 475 g/kg:
1. SUG is represented as glucose units. Sacharose = 0.95 * SUG.
2. The S-i content of this product is variable; for a correct calculation of the CAD value of a batch the S-i content should be
analyzed.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 4.0 6.9 5.2 3.3 8.2 - - - 2.1
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.7 3.0 2.0 1.1 3.9 0.1 0.6 0.1 1.2
sdc 0.1 0.3 - - 0.6 0.0 0.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.3 1.4 0.6 0.9 4.5 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.6
sdc - 0.3 - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.7 3.6 1.6 - - - - - 1.1
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.6 4.3 2.8 1.2 4.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 1.5
sdc - 0.3 - - 0.2 - 0.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.9 5.9 3.8 2.7 6.6 0.1 1.6 1.1 1.3
sdc 0.4 0.3 - 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.9 5.7 3.7 2.7 6.7 0.1 1.6 1.1 1.2
sdc 0.4 0.3 - 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.4 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.8 6.0 3.9 2.8 7.1 0.1 1.7 0.3 1.3
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.7 5.9 3.8 2.7 6.9 0.1 1.7 0.3 1.2
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.2 3.1 2.0 2.6 - - - - 0.7
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.9 3.8 2.1 1.2 10.0 0.1 0.7 0.5 1.2
sdc 0.2 0.4 - 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.4 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Remarks
Peas:
1. The stated digestibility values for poultry apply to summer peas.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 13.6 7.9 - 3.2 5.8 - - - 2.6
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.3 1.4 0.2 0.6 11.2 5.7 7.4 - 0.4
sdc 0.1 0.2 - 0.1 1.9 3.2 4.8 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.4 1.6 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 2.2 1.1 7.1
sdc 0.1 0.4 - 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.2 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.5 2.0 1.0 0.4 6.9 0.3 0.8 1.1 6.9
sdc 0.3 0.5 - - 1.6 - 0.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.7 1.0 0.2 0.6 12.7 0.9 1.8 0.7 0.5
sdc - 0.4 - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Potato pulp, dried-CP < 90 g/kg:
1. Often of non-Dutch origin.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.6 1.3 0.2 0.8 25.1 0.8 1.8 1.3 0.7
sdc - - - - 3.2 - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Potato pulp, dried-CP 90 - 130 g/kg:
1. Often of non-Dutch origin.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - - - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Potato pulp, dried-CP > 130 g/kg:
1. Often of non-Dutch origin.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.2 - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.2 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.4 17.4 11.6 - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.5 2.4 0.4 - 12.1 1.3 - - 0.7
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 46.2 22.8 - 1.6 6.2 8.4 8.5 1.3 3.6
sdc 8.0 3.7 - 0.1 0.8 1.7 1.9 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Remarks
Processed animal protein, Dutch origin:
1. Processing this product in feeds for pigs, poultry and ruminants is not allowed (EC No 999/2001).
2. The content of linoleic acid may vary from 3 to 12%.
3. The ASH content differs per supplier, the concentration of minerals varies accordingly.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 69.8 34.9 - 1.8 7.0 7.7 6.3 1.4 3.1
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Remarks
Processed animal protein, European origin-CFATh < 100 g/kg:
1. Processing this product in feeds for pigs, poultry and ruminants is not allowed (EC No 999/2001).
2. The content of linoleic acid may vary from 3 to 12%.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 57.4 31.8 - 1.9 5.1 7.0 6.9 1.3 3.1
sdc 9.8 2.8 - - 0.7 1.3 2.0 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Remarks
Processed animal protein, European origin-CFATh > 100 g/kg:
1. Processing this product in feeds for pigs, poultry and ruminants is not allowed (EC No 999/2001).
2. The content of linoleic acid may vary from 3 to 12%.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 4.3 6.3 4.7 2.5 7.4 0.1 0.2 0.7 2.1
sdc 0.6 0.4 - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Remarks
Rape seed:
1. The content of S-o does not include the sulphur bound to thioglucosinolates.
2. The nutrient digestibility values mentioned for pigs and poultry apply to the so-called double-zero variety.
3. The DCCFATh for pigs only applies for rapeseed that has been grinded very well so that the structure of all fat cells is
destroyed so that the fat inside the cells can be digested well.
4. The DCCFATh of 84% for broilers is applicable only for rapeseed that has been grinded very well; if this is not the case a
DCCFATh of 78% is advised.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 6.9 10.2 7.6 3.9 11.3 0.4 0.4 0.8 3.5
sdc - 0.6 - - 0.6 - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Remarks
Rape seed expeller:
1. The content of S-o does not include the sulphur bound to thioglucosinolates.
2. The nutrient digestibility values mentioned for pigs and poultry apply to the so-called double-zero variety.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 7.2 10.9 8.2 4.3 13.0 0.3 0.3 0.7 3.6
sdc 0.4 0.6 - 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Remarks
Rape seed meal, rumen bypass, Mervobest:
1. Product treated with formaldehyde, produced by Nuscience in utrecht, the Netherlands. the average nutrient values are solely
based on analyses carried out on this product.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 7.5 10.5 7.9 4.1 12.2 0.8 0.4 0.7 3.7
sdc 0.8 0.6 - 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Remarks
Rape seed meal, solvent extracted-CP < 370 g/kg:
1. The content of S-o does not include the sulphur bound to thioglucosinolates.
2. The nutrient digestibility values mentioned for pigs and poultry apply to the so-called double-zero variety.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 7.1 10.6 8.0 4.0 12.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 4.2
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Remarks
Rape seed meal, solvent extracted-CP > 370 g/kg:
1. Sometimes mustardseed meal, solvent extracted is traded under this name.
2. The content of S-o does not include the sulphur bound to thioglucosinolates.
3. The nutrient digestibility values mentioned for pigs and poultry apply to the so-called double-zero variety.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.1 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.9 - 0.3 - 0.8
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.4 2.6 2.3 1.4 3.4 - - - 0.8
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.1 16.5 14.9 8.1 12.3 0.2 0.9 0.2 1.5
sdc 0.6 2.2 - - - - 0.5 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 4.7 15.1 13.6 5.5 9.9 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.4
sdc 4.7 2.6 - - - 0.0 - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Remarks
Rice feed meal-ASH < 90 g/kg:
1. Often limestone is added to this product, the Ca content of this product without added limestone is approximately 1 g/kg.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 24.9 17.0 15.3 6.7 10.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.4
sdc 9.1 1.5 - - - 0.0 - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 80
Remarks
Rice feed meal-ASH > 90 g/kg:
1. Often limestone is added to this product, the Ca content of this product without added limestone is approximately 1 g/kg.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 3.6 11.0 9.9 1.3 9.4 0.7 - - 0.7
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.4 3.1 2.0 1.0 4.6 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.9
sdc 0.1 0.3 - 0.1 0.4 0.0 - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 70
Remarks
Rye:
1. The STaDCP of rye including endogenous phytase activity is 52%.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.8 4.4 3.3 - 6.3 - - - 1.4
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 70
Remarks
Rye feed:
1. The STaDCP of rye feed including endogenous phytase activity is 30%.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - - - - - 1.0
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 11.0 5.6 3.6 4.1 5.2 - 0.1 - 2.4
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 19.1 9.8 6.9 7.1 9.4 0.1 0.1 - 4.9
sdc 2.7 1.1 - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Remarks
Sesame seed expeller:
1. Calcium is largely bound to calcium oxalate.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 23.0 12.9 9.0 7.7 10.4 0.2 0.4 - 4.7
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Remarks
Sesame seed meal, solvent extracted:
1. Calcium is largely bound to calcium oxalate.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.3 2.7 1.9 1.2 3.5 0.1 0.7 - 0.8
sdc 0.1 0.3 - 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Remarks
Sorghum:
1. The digestibility coefficients mentioned for broilers, roosters and laying hens only apply for sorghum containing less than 4 g
tannin per kg.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - 3.0 1.8 - - - - - 3.6
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.7 6.3 4.1 2.9 21.6 0.2 0.4 0.5 3.1
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 5.8 1.7 0.8 2.2 12.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.9
sdc - - - 0.2 - 0.1 - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Remarks
Soya bean hulls-CF < 320 g/kg:
1. This class contains to some extent pieces of soya beans that may not have been heat treated.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 5.3 1.2 0.5 2.2 12.9 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.7
sdc 0.4 0.2 - 0.2 0.8 0.1 - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 5.2 1.1 0.5 2.2 12.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.7
sdc 0.5 0.2 - 0.2 1.1 0.1 - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.6 6.4 4.5 2.9 21.7 0.2 0.2 5.2 3.2
sdc 0.5 0.5 - 0.3 1.7 0.2 0.1 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Remarks
Soya bean meal, rumen bypass, CovaSoy:
1. Product treated with formaldehyde, produced by FeedValid B.V. in Poederoijen, the Netherlands. The average nutrient values
are solely based on analyses carried out on this product.
2. The feeding values for protein apply to a product produced in a meal form.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.8 5.7 4.0 2.9 21.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 3.2
sdc 0.3 0.2 - 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Remarks
Soya bean meal, rumen bypass, Mervobest:
1. Product treated with formaldehyde, produced by Nuscience in Utrecht, the Netherlands. the average nutrient values are solely
based on analyses carried out on this product.
2. The feeding values for protein apply to a product produced in a meal form.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.9 6.7 4.7 3.0 22.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 3.3
sdc 0.5 0.4 - 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.2 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.9 6.5 4.6 3.0 22.1 0.1 0.4 1.2 3.4
sdc 0.5 0.5 - 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.2 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.9 5.9 4.1 3.0 22.1 0.1 0.4 2.1 3.1
sdc 0.5 0.4 - 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.2 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.9 6.4 4.5 3.0 22.0 0.1 0.4 3.0 3.3
sdc 0.5 0.6 - 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.2 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.9 5.8 4.1 3.0 22.0 0.1 0.4 3.9 3.0
sdc 0.5 0.2 - 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.2 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.2 5.1 3.5 3.0 17.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 2.5
sdc 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Remarks
Soya beans, heat treated:
1. this composition does not apply for dehulled, toasted soya beans.
2. The DCCFATh for pigs only applies for a ground product.
3. The nutrient digestibility values mentioned for roosters and laying hens apply for grounded unpelleted feeds.
4. The DCCFATh for broilers is valid for pelleted feeds.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.2 5.1 3.5 3.0 17.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 2.5
sdc 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Remarks
Soya beans, raw:
1. this composition does not apply for dehulled, toasted soya beans.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean - - - - - - - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Sugar:
1. The energy value for ruminants has been derived from starch, based on its ATP yielding capacity.
2. SUG is represented as glucose units. The sacharose content is 0.95 * SUG = 1000 g/kg.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 9.9 0.8 0.2 2.4 4.0 0.5 0.4 1.4 0.5
sdc 1.9 0.1 - 0.6 1.4 0.3 0.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Sugarbeet pulp, dried-SUG < 100 g/kg:
1. Vinasse may be added to this class of sugar beet pulp. In case vinasse is added the K content will be higher than mentioned.
2. The NE2015 and EW2015 have been calculated including an addition for reduced activity.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 9.0 0.7 0.2 1.7 6.5 0.5 0.4 1.4 0.5
sdc 2.0 0.1 - 0.3 3.3 0.3 0.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Sugarbeet pulp, dried-SUG 100 - 150 g/kg:
1. This class of sugar beet pulp contains molasses.
2. The NE2015 and EW2015 have been calculated including an addition for reduced activity.
3. The AA pattern is based on the relative proportions of sugar beet pulp (SUG < 100 g/kg) and sugar beet molasses, and the AA
pattern of these products.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 7.9 0.7 0.2 1.7 5.4 0.5 0.4 1.6 0.5
sdc 1.5 0.1 - 0.3 2.8 0.3 0.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Sugarbeet pulp, dried-SUG 150 - 200 g/kg:
1. This class of sugar beet pulp contains molasses.
2. The NE2015 and EW2015 have been calculated including an addition for reduced activity.
3. The AA pattern is based on the relative proportions of sugar beet pulp (SUG < 100 g/kg) and sugar beet molasses, and the AA
pattern of these products.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 7.8 0.7 0.2 1.4 14.6 2.5 0.4 1.4 0.5
sdc 1.5 0.2 - 0.3 2.1 1.0 0.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Sugarbeet pulp, dried-SUG > 200 g/kg:
1. This class of sugar beet pulp contains molasses.
2. The NE2015 and EW2015 have been calculated including an addition for reduced activity.
3. The AA pattern is based on the relative proportions of sugar beet pulp (SUG < 100 g/kg) and sugar beet molasses, and the AA
pattern of these products.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.3 5.0 4.0 2.5 7.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.9
sdc - 0.6 - - 0.8 - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.3 4.8 3.9 2.6 8.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.6
sdc - 0.8 - - - 0.5 - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.4 4.4 3.5 2.6 8.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.3
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 95
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.9 11.3 9.0 3.8 14.3 0.2 1.2 0.2 3.1
sdc - 0.8 - - 0.6 - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.9 10.0 8.0 3.8 13.0 0.2 1.2 0.2 2.8
sdc - 1.5 - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.9 5.5 4.4 3.8 12.9 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.7
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 75
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 3.6 11.6 9.3 5.7 15.6 0.2 1.1 - 3.4
sdc 0.4 1.2 - 0.7 1.4 0.1 0.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 3.5 10.6 8.4 5.6 15.2 0.2 1.1 - 2.8
sdc 0.4 1.4 - 0.7 1.2 0.1 0.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 3.5 9.7 7.7 5.6 13.5 0.2 1.1 - 2.5
sdc 0.4 0.9 - 0.7 1.3 0.1 0.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 65
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.7 1.3 0.3 - 5.8 2.6 1.7 1.2 0.3
sdc - - - - 0.8 - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.2 0.4 0.1 - - 0.1 - - -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 4.1 0.7 0.1 1.0 6.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1
sdc 2.2 0.1 - - 0.7 - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Tapioca, dried-STAew < 630 g/kg:
1. This product may be contaminated with sand / soil; this is the case when the ASH content is higher than approximately 26 g/kg
DM.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.5 0.7 0.1 1.0 6.2 0.1 0.4 1.1 0.1
sdc 0.5 0.1 - - 0.8 0.0 - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Tapioca, dried-STAew 630 - 680 g/kg:
1. This product may be contaminated with sand / soil; this is the case when the ASH content is higher than approximately 26 g/kg
DM.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.0 0.9 0.1 1.0 6.6 0.1 0.4 1.9 0.1
sdc 0.5 0.1 - - 1.0 - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Tapioca, dried-STAew 680 - 730 g/kg:
1. This product may be contaminated with sand / soil; this is the case when the ASH content is higher than approximately 26 g/kg
DM.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.4 3.2 2.1 1.2 4.8 0.1 0.5 0.1 1.0
sdc - 0.3 - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Triticale:
1. The STaDCP of triticale including endogenous phytase activity is 50%.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 4.1 1.2 0.1 1.0 68.6 16.0 10.0 5.7 1.1
sdc 1.3 0.9 - 0.5 12.3 4.7 3.8 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Vinasse, beet-CP < 240 g/kg:
1. The CP fraction contains a substantial amount of NPN that yields no energy. For the NE2015 calculation the DCCP is therefore
set at 40%.
2. The S-i content of this product is variable; for a correct calculation of the CAD value of a batch the S-i content should be
analysed.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 2.3 1.7 0.1 0.6 26.6 19.3 19.1 6.4 1.4
sdc 1.1 0.9 - 0.4 18.6 1.9 3.5 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Vinasse, beet-CP > 240 g/kg:
1. The CP fraction contains a substantial amount of NPN that yields no energy. For the NE2015 calculation the DCCP is therefore
set at 40%.
2. The S-i content of this product is variable; for a correct calculation of the CAD value of a batch the S-i content should be
analysed.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.3 3.0 1.9 0.9 3.8 0.1 0.6 0.1 1.0
sdc 0.1 0.3 - 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.3 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 70
Remarks
Wheat:
1. The STaDCP of wheat including endogenous phytase activity is 52%.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.9 9.1 7.7 2.9 10.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 1.6
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 70
Remarks
Wheat germ feed:
1. The STaDCP of wheat germ feed including endogenous phytase activity is 32%.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.5 7.9 4.3 2.4 9.4 0.1 0.9 0.1 2.0
sdc - 0.5 - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
Remarks
Wheat germs:
1. The STaDCP of wheat germs including endogenous phytase activity is 45%.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.0 6.3 4.1 2.7 11.1 1.6 2.1 - 1.2
sdc 0.1 0.5 - 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.7 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.1 8.8 5.7 2.7 11.8 1.7 2.1 - 1.4
sdc 0.1 0.5 - 0.3 1.0 0.6 0.7 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.1 9.6 3.9 2.7 12.5 2.8 2.1 - 1.5
sdc 0.1 0.8 - 0.3 0.8 0.9 0.7 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.1 10.1 4.1 2.8 11.4 2.5 2.2 - 1.4
sdc 0.1 1.9 - 0.3 1.4 1.1 0.7 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.7 1.8 0.9 0.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.1 7.3
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.4 4.0 3.4 1.0 3.9 0.1 0.8 - 1.3
sdc 0.2 0.7 - - - - 0.1 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 70
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.8 5.5 4.7 2.2 9.7 0.2 0.7 0.1 1.4
sdc 0.3 1.1 - - 1.7 - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 70
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.0 8.6 7.3 3.2 12.5 0.2 0.7 0.1 1.4
sdc 0.2 1.1 - 0.3 1.8 - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 70
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 0.9 9.6 8.1 3.8 12.7 0.1 0.6 0.2 1.4
sdc 0.2 0.9 - 0.4 1.3 0.2 0.1 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 70
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.0 10.6 9.0 4.6 13.3 0.2 0.6 0.1 1.3
sdc - 1.3 - - - - 0.1 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 70
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 1.0 12.3 10.5 5.2 15.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 1.3
sdc - - - - - - - - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 70
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 5.4 6.1 - 1.2 23.6 6.8 18.5 0.7 1.1
sdc 0.6 0.5 - 0.2 1.7 0.8 1.0 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Whey powder:
1. SUG is represented as glucose units. Lactose = 0.95 * SUG.
2. SUGe/SUG for pigs only applies when lactose containing diets are fed on a regular basis; otherwise SUGe/SUG = 0.
3. For the digestibility of the NFE fraction in poultry complete fermentation of lactose (present in limited amounts in the diet) is
assumed.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 17.6 14.7 - 2.8 45.3 16.5 29.4 - 2.1
sdc 9.4 2.4 - - 7.3 3.1 3.8 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Whey powder, low lactose-ASH < 210 g/kg:
1. SUG is represented as glucose units. Lactose = 0.95 * SUG.
2. SUGe/SUG for pigs only applies when lactose containing diets are fed on a regular basis; otherwise SUGe/SUG = 0.
3. For the digestibility of the NFE fraction in poultry complete fermentation of lactose (present in limited amounts in the diet) is
assumed.
Minerals (g/kg)
Ca P IP Mg K Na Cl S-i S-o
mean 33.8 19.6 - 3.1 48.7 19.3 29.4 - 1.8
sdc 9.9 2.7 - - 1.6 3.6 1.2 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Whey powder, low lactose-ASH > 210 g/kg:
1. SUG is represented as glucose units. Lactose = 0.95 * SUG.
2. SUGe/SUG for pigs only applies when lactose containing diets are fed on a regular basis; otherwise SUGe/SUG = 0.
3. For the digestibility of the NFE fraction in poultry complete fermentation of lactose (present in limited amounts in the diet) is
assumed.
403
Brewer's grains, Meura filter process 1005.324/0/0
Weende analysis and carbohydrates (g/kg DM)
DM ASH CP CFAT CFATh CF NFE NFEh
mean 258 42 260 - 103 182 - 414
sdc 14 5 15 - 8 17 - -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Brewer's grains, Meura filter process:
1. This product has a high fermentation rate. Therefore no distinction is made between 'fresh' and 'ensiled'.
2. The NDF content is lower than the analyzed NDF content and is chosen such that RNSP = 0. It is likely that part of the
analyzed NDF consists of protein.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Brewer's grains, traditional process-DM < 250 g/kg:
1. This product has a high fermentation rate. Therefore no distinction is made between 'fresh' and 'ensiled'.
2. At delivery usually salt is added. The Na-content of the product after salt addition is around 1 g/kg DM and the Cl-content 1.5
g/kg DM.
3. The NDF content is lower than the analyzed NDF content and is chosen such that RNSP = 0. It is likely that part of the
analyzed NDF consists of protein.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Brewer's grains, traditional process-DM > 250 g/kg:
1. This product has a high fermentation rate. Therefore no distinction is made between 'fresh' and 'ensiled'.
2. At delivery usually salt is added. The Na-content of the product after salt addition is around 1 g/kg DM and the Cl-content 1.5
g/kg DM.
3. The NDF content is lower than the analyzed NDF content and is chosen such that RNSP = 0. It is likely that part of the
analyzed NDF consists of protein.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Brewer's yeast, liquid-CP low:
1. Nutrient concentrations are expressed on a DM basis; ethanol is considered part of the dry matter.
2. In reality analysed DM contents will be lower and nutrient values analysed in DM will be higher due to evaporation of ethanol
during the drying process.
3. The NSPh fraction is calculated as 1000 - (ASH + CP + CFATh + STAam + GOS + CF_DI * SUG + 0.92 * LA + 0.5 * AC +
ETH).
4. Average analysed content (without correction for ETH evaporation) for DM was 99 g/kg and for CP 355 g/kg DM.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Brewer's yeast, liquid-CP average:
1. Nutrient concentrations are expressed on a DM basis; ethanol is considered part of the dry matter.
2. In reality analysed DM contents will be lower and nutrient values analysed in DM will be higher due to evaporation of ethanol
during the drying process.
3. The NSPh fraction is calculated as 1000 - (ASH + CP + CFATh + STAam + GOS + CF_DI * SUG + 0.92 * LA + 0.5 * AC +
ETH).
4. Average analysed content (without correction for ETH evaporation) for DM was 103 g/kg and for CP 457 g/kg DM.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Brewer's yeast, liquid-CP high:
1. Nutrient concentrations are expressed on a DM basis; ethanol is considered part of the dry matter.
2. In reality analysed DM contents will be lower and nutrient values analysed in DM will be higher due to evaporation of ethanol
during the drying process.
3. The NSP fraction is calculated as 1000 - (ASH + CP + CFATh + STAam + GOS + CF_DI * SUG + 0.92 * LA + 0.5 * AC +
ETH).
4. Average analysed content (without correction for ETH evaporation) for DM was 114 g/kg and for CP 537 g/kg DM.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Cheese whey, fresh-CP < 175 g/kg DM:
1. SUG is represented as glucose units. Lactose = 0.95 * SUG.
2. SUGe/SUG for pigs only applies when lactose containing diets are fed on a regular basis; otherwise SUGe/SUG = 0.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Cheese whey, fresh-CP 175 - 275 g/kg DM:
1. SUG is represented as glucose units. Lactose = 0.95 * SUG.
2. SUGe/SUG for pigs only applies when lactose containing diets are fed on a regular basis; otherwise SUGe/SUG = 0.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Cheese whey, fresh-CP > 275 g/kg DM:
1. SUG is represented as glucose units. Lactose = 0.95 * SUG.
2. SUGe/SUG for pigs only applies when lactose containing diets are fed on a regular basis; otherwise SUGe/SUG = 0.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
% FA in CFAT-fraction 90
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Maize gluten feed, fresh and ensiled-STAew < 200 g/kg DM:
1. This product has a high fermentation rate. Therefore no distinction is made between 'fresh' and 'ensiled'.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Maize gluten feed, fresh and ensiled-STAew > 200 g/kg DM:
1. This product has a high fermentation rate. Therefore no distinction is made between 'fresh' and 'ensiled'.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Pea creme:
1. Pea creme is a mixture of pea fiber and pea protein, liquid, and consists on a DM-basis for 55% of pea protein and for 45% of
pea fibre.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Potato peelings, steamed-STAam < 350 g/kg DM:
1. DCiSTA value is valid for all batches that are not mixed with by-products containing native starch.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Potato peelings, steamed-STAam 350 - 475 g/kg DM:
1. DCiSTA value is valid for all batches that are not mixed with by-products containing native starch.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Potato peelings, steamed-STAam 475 - 600 g/kg DM:
1. DCiSTA value is valid for all batches that are not mixed with by-products containing native starch.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Potato peelings, steamed-STAam > 600 g/kg DM:
1. DCiSTA value is valid for all batches that are not mixed with by-products containing native starch.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Potato pulp, pressed, :
1. This product has a high fermentation rate. Therefore no distinction is made between 'fresh' and 'ensiled'.
2. For this product analysis of starch should be based on STAam. STAew is an artefact.
3. The S-i content of this product is variable; for a correct calculation of the CAD value of a batch the S-i content should be
analysed.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Potato pulp, pressed, Dutch origin:
1. This product has a high fermentation rate. Therefore no distinction is made between 'fresh' and 'ensiled'.
2. For this product analysis of starch should be based on STAam. STAew is an artefact.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
Remarks
Sugarbeet pulp, pressed, ensiled:
1. The NE2015 and EW2015 have been calculated including an addition for reduced activity.
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
% FA in CFAT-fraction -
501
Apples, fresh 6020.000/0/0
Weende analysis and carbohydrates (g/kg DM)
DM ASH CPin CP CFAT CFATh CF NFE NFEh
mean 157 23 26 26 19 - 65 868 -
sdc 14 2 - 7 - - 13 - -
564
Grass/clover, silage-White clover 5037.602/2/0
Weende analysis and carbohydrates (g/kg DM)
DM ASH CPin CP CFAT CFATh CF NFE NFEh
mean 456 121 167 154 33 - 279 413 -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
566
Green cereals, fresh 5028.000/0/0
Weende analysis and carbohydrates (g/kg DM)
DM ASH CPin CP CFAT CFATh CF NFE NFEh
mean 160 80 110 110 35 - 250 525 -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
576
Maize silage-DM 340 - 380 g/kg 5008.602/2/0
Weende analysis and carbohydrates (g/kg DM)
DM ASH CPin CP CFAT CFATh CF NFE NFEh
mean 361 36 72 67 32 - 174 691 -
sdc 11 4 - 5 3 - 14 - -
578
Maize silage-DM 380 - 420 g/kg 5008.602/3/0
Weende analysis and carbohydrates (g/kg DM)
DM ASH CPin CP CFAT CFATh CF NFE NFEh
mean 398 34 70 65 33 - 168 700 -
sdc 11 4 - 5 3 - 13 - -
580
Maize silage-DM > 420 g/kg 5008.602/4/0
Weende analysis and carbohydrates (g/kg DM)
DM ASH CPin CP CFAT CFATh CF NFE NFEh
mean 435 33 70 64 33 - 162 708 -
sdc 10 4 - 5 3 - 13 - -
582
Oats straw 1004.508/0/0
Weende analysis and carbohydrates (g/kg DM)
DM ASH CPin CP CFAT CFATh CF NFE NFEh
mean 840 70 37 37 17 - 450 426 -
sdc - - - - - - - - -
605
Code English Dutch
8051.425 Fat/oil, Poultry fat Vet/olie, Kippenvet 80
3009.437 Fat/oil, Rapeseed oil Vet/olie, Raapzaadolie 82
3013.425 Fat/oil, Safflower oil Vet/olie, Saffloerolie 84
3012.421 Fat/oil, Soya oil Vet/olie, Sojaolie 86
3003.421 Fat/oil, Sunflower oil, refined Vet/olie, Zonnebloemolie, geraffineerd 88
8020.000 Fat/oil, Tallow Vet/olie, Rundvet 90
8003.629 Feather meal, hydrolysed Verenmeel, gehydrolyseerd 92
2001.616 Feed beans, heat treated Bonen (Phaseolus), verhit 94
8015.000 Fish meal, treated Vismeel, behandeld 96
8015.000 Fish meal, treated Vismeel, behandeld 98
8015.000 Fish meal, treated Vismeel, behandeld 100
8015.000 Fish meal, treated Vismeel, behandeld 102
5010.610 Grass meal Grasmeel/-brok 104
5010.610 Grass meal Grasmeel/-brok 106
5010.610 Grass meal Grasmeel/-brok 108
5010.610 Grass meal Grasmeel/-brok 110
7009.000 grass seed Graszaad 112
8007.000 Greaves meal Kanenmeel 114
2013.401 Groundnut expeller Grondnootschilfers 116
2013.401 Groundnut expeller Grondnootschilfers 118
2013.401 Groundnut expeller Grondnootschilfers 120
2013.407 Groundnut meal Grondnootschroot 122
2013.407 Groundnut meal Grondnootschroot 124
2013.407 Groundnut meal Grondnootschroot 126
2013.000 Groundnuts (peanuts) Grondnoten 128
2013.000 Groundnuts (peanuts) Grondnoten 130
3014.000 Hemp seed Hennepzaad 132
2002.000 Horse beans Paardebonen bontbloeiend 134
2017.000 Horsebeans, white Paardebonen, witbloeiend 136
2008.000 Lentils Linzen 138
3006.000 Linseed Lijnzaad 140
3006.401 Linseed expeller Lijnzaadschilfers 142
3006.407 Linseed meal Lijnzaadschroot 144
5004.610 Lucerne (alfalfa) meal Luzernemeel/-brok 146
5004.610 Lucerne (alfalfa) meal Luzernemeel/-brok 148
5004.610 Lucerne (alfalfa) meal Luzernemeel/-brok 150
5004.610 Lucerne (alfalfa) meal Luzernemeel/-brok 152
2004.000 Lupins Lupinen 154
2004.000 Lupins Lupinen 156
606
Code English Dutch
1002.000 Maize Mais 158
1002.108 Maize bran Maiszemelgrint 160
1002.103 Maize feed flour Maisvoerbloem 162
1002.105 Maize feed meal Maisvoermeel 164
1002.416 Maize feed meal, solvent extracted Maisvoerschroot 166
1002.418 Maize germ meal, solvent extracted Maiskiemschroot 168
1002.102 Maize germs Maiskiemen 170
1002.102 Maize germs Maiskiemen 172
1002.417 Maize germs expeller Maiskiemschilfers 174
1002.205 Maize gluten feed Maisglutenvoer 176
1002.205 Maize gluten feed Maisglutenvoer 178
1002.205 Maize gluten feed Maisglutenvoer 180
1002.204 Maize gluten meal Maisglutenmeel 182
1002.201 Maize starch Maiszetmeel 184
1002.629 Maize, chemical/heat treated Mais, ontsloten 186
1002.308 Maize, distillers solubles, dried Maisspoeling, gedroogd 188
1005.310 Malt culms Moutkiemen 190
1005.310 Malt culms Moutkiemen 192
8004.000 Meat-and-bone meal Vleesbeendermeel 194
8004.000 Meat-and-bone meal Vleesbeendermeel 196
8012.000 Milk powder, whole Melkpoeder, volle- 198
8008.000 Milkpowder, skimmed Melkpoeder, mager 200
1006.000 Millet Millet (gierst) 202
1013.000 Millet, (pearl millet) Millet (parelgierst) 204
4004.210 Molasses, sugarbeet Melasse, biet- 206
7002.210 Molasses, sugarcane Melasse, riet-, 208
7002.210 Molasses, sugarcane Melasse, riet-, 210
3002.000 Niger seed Nigerzaad 212
1004.000 Oats Haver 214
1004.111 Oats husk meal Havermoutafvalmeel 216
1004.105 Oats mill feed, high grade Havervoermeel 218
1004.116 Oats, peeled Haver, gepeld 220
3001.401 Palm kernel expeller Palmpitschilfers 222
3001.401 Palm kernel expeller Palmpitschilfers 224
3001.407 Palm kernel, solvent extracted Palmpitschroot 226
3001.407 Palm kernel, solvent extracted Palmpitschroot 228
3001.000 Palm kernels Palmpitten 230
2006.000 Peas Erwten 232
3007.000 Poppy seed Maanzaad 234
607
Code English Dutch
4001.664 Potato crisps Aardappelchips 236
4001.203 Potato protein Aardappeleiwit 238
4001.203 Potato protein Aardappeleiwit 240
4001.202 Potato pulp, dried Aardappelvezels, gedroogd 242
4001.202 Potato pulp, dried Aardappelvezels, gedroogd 244
4001.202 Potato pulp, dried Aardappelvezels, gedroogd 246
4001.201 Potato starch, dried Aardappelzetmeel, gedroogd 248
4001.232 Potato starch, heat treated, dried Aardappelzetmeel, ontsloten, gedroogd 250
4001.611 Potatoes, dried Aardappelen, gedroogd 252
8001.003 Processed animal protein, Dutch origin Verwerkt dierlijk eiwit, Nederlandse herkomst 254
8001.001 Processed animal protein, European origin Verwerkt dierlijk eiwit, Europese herkomst 256
8001.001 Processed animal protein, European origin Verwerkt dierlijk eiwit, Europese herkomst 258
3009.000 Rape seed Raapzaad 260
3009.401 Rape seed expeller Raapzaadschilfers 262
3009.434 Rape seed meal, rumen bypass, Mervobest Raapzaadschroot bestendig, Mervobest 264
3009.407 Rape seed meal, solvent extracted Raapzaadschroot 266
3009.407 Rape seed meal, solvent extracted Raapzaadschroot 268
1003.000 Rice Rijst 270
1003.000 Rice Rijst 272
1003.416 Rice bran meal, solvent extracted Rijstevoerschroot 274
1003.122 Rice feed meal Rijstevoermeel 276
1003.122 Rice feed meal Rijstevoermeel 278
1003.115 Rice husk Rijstafvallen 280
1007.000 Rye Rogge 282
1007.107 Rye feed Roggegries 284
3013.000 Safflower seed Saffloerzaad 286
3005.000 Sesame seed Sesamzaad 288
3005.401 Sesame seed expeller Sesamzaadschilfers 290
3005.407 Sesame seed meal, solvent extracted Sesamzaadschroot 292
1008.000 Sorghum Sorghum 294
1008.204 Sorghum gluten meal Sorghumglutenmeel 296
3012.401 Soya bean expeller Sojaschilfers 298
3012.505 Soya bean hulls Sojabonenschillen 300
3012.505 Soya bean hulls Sojabonenschillen 302
3012.505 Soya bean hulls Sojabonenschillen 304
3012.436 Soya bean meal, rumen bypass, CovaSoy Sojaschroot bestendig: CovaSoy 306
3012.434 Soya bean meal, rumen bypass, Mervobest Sojaschroot bestendig: Mervobest soja 308
3012.407 Soya bean meal, solvent extracted Sojaschroot 310
3012.407 Soya bean meal, solvent extracted Sojaschroot 312
608
Code English Dutch
3012.407 Soya bean meal, solvent extracted Sojaschroot 314
3012.407 Soya bean meal, solvent extracted Sojaschroot 316
3012.407 Soya bean meal, solvent extracted Sojaschroot 318
3012.616 Soya beans, heat treated Sojabonen, verhit 320
3012.000 Soya beans, raw Sojabonen, rauw 322
4004.211 Sugar Suiker 324
4004.209 Sugarbeet pulp, dried Bietenpulp, gedroogd 326
4004.209 Sugarbeet pulp, dried Bietenpulp, gedroogd 328
4004.209 Sugarbeet pulp, dried Bietenpulp, gedroogd 330
4004.209 Sugarbeet pulp, dried Bietenpulp, gedroogd 332
3003.000 Sunflower seed Zonnebloemzaad 334
3003.000 Sunflower seed Zonnebloemzaad 336
3003.000 Sunflower seed Zonnebloemzaad 338
3003.401 Sunflower seed expeller Zonnebloemzaadschilfers 340
3003.401 Sunflower seed expeller Zonnebloemzaadschilfers 342
3003.401 Sunflower seed expeller Zonnebloemzaadschilfers 344
3003.407 Sunflower seed meal, solvent extracted Zonnebloemzaadschroot 346
3003.407 Sunflower seed meal, solvent extracted Zonnebloemzaadschroot 348
3003.407 Sunflower seed meal, solvent extracted Zonnebloemzaadschroot 350
4007.611 Sweet potatoes, dried Bataten, gedroogd 352
4008.201 Tapioca starch Tapiocazetmeel 354
4008.611 Tapioca, dried Tapioca, gedroogd 356
4008.611 Tapioca, dried Tapioca, gedroogd 358
4008.611 Tapioca, dried Tapioca, gedroogd 360
1012.000 Triticale Triticale 362
4004.306 Vinasse, beet Vinasse, biet 364
4004.306 Vinasse, beet Vinasse, biet 366
1010.000 Wheat Tarwe 368
1010.114 Wheat germ feed Tarwekiemzemelen 370
1010.102 Wheat germs Tarwekiemen 372
1010.205 Wheat gluten feed, dried Tarweglutenvoer, gedroogd 374
1010.205 Wheat gluten feed, dried Tarweglutenvoer, gedroogd 376
1010.205 Wheat gluten feed, dried Tarweglutenvoer, gedroogd 378
1010.205 Wheat gluten feed, dried Tarweglutenvoer, gedroogd 380
1010.204 Wheat gluten meal Tarweglutenmeel 382
1010.100 Wheat milling by-products Tarwemaalderijproducten 384
1010.100 Wheat milling by-products Tarwemaalderijproducten 386
1010.100 Wheat milling by-products Tarwemaalderijproducten 388
1010.100 Wheat milling by-products Tarwemaalderijproducten 390
609
Code English Dutch
1010.100 Wheat milling by-products Tarwemaalderijproducten 392
1010.100 Wheat milling by-products Tarwemaalderijproducten 394
8009.000 Whey powder Weipoeder 396
8009.626 Whey powder, low lactose Weipoeder, melksuikerarm 398
8009.626 Whey powder, low lactose Weipoeder, melksuikerarm 400
1005.324 Brewer's grains, Meura filter process Bierbostel, persbostel 404
1005.313 Brewer's grains, traditional process Bierbostel, traditioneel proces 406
1005.313 Brewer's grains, traditional process Bierbostel, traditioneel proces 408
9001.314 Brewer's yeast, liquid Biergist, vloeibaar 410
9001.314 Brewer's yeast, liquid Biergist, vloeibaar 412
9001.314 Brewer's yeast, liquid Biergist, vloeibaar 414
4006.634 Carrot peelings, steam peeled Wortelstoomschillen, vers 416
8023.000 Cheese whey, fresh Kaaswei, vers 418
8023.000 Cheese whey, fresh Kaaswei, vers 420
8023.000 Cheese whey, fresh Kaaswei, vers 422
4015.240 Chicory press pulp, fresh and ensiled Cichorei-perspulp, vers en kuil 424
1002.517 Corn cob mix (CCM), silage Corn Cob Mix (CCM), kuil 426
1002.517 Corn cob mix (CCM), silage Corn Cob Mix (CCM), kuil 428
1002.517 Corn cob mix (CCM), silage Corn Cob Mix (CCM), kuil 430
1000.304 Distiller's solubles, fresh Graanspoeling, vers 432
1002.240 Maize gluten feed, fresh and ensiled Maisglutenvoer, vers en kuil 434
1002.240 Maize gluten feed, fresh and ensiled Maisglutenvoer, vers en kuil 436
1002.212 Maize solubles Maisweekwater 438
2006.205 Pea creme Erwtencrème 440
2006.709 Pea fibre Erwtenvezel 442
2006.204 Pea protein, liquid Erwteneiwit, vloeibaar 444
4001.637 Potato cuttings/chips, prefried Aardappelsnippers, voorgebakken 446
4001.637 Potato cuttings/chips, prefried Aardappelsnippers, voorgebakken 448
4001.637 Potato cuttings/chips, prefried Aardappelsnippers, voorgebakken 450
4001.636 Potato cuttings/chips, raw Aardappelsnippers, rauw 452
4001.208 Potato fruit-juice concentrated Aardappeldiksap 454
4001.638 Potato peelings, steamed Aardappelstoomschillen, vers en kuil 456
4001.638 Potato peelings, steamed Aardappelstoomschillen, vers en kuil 458
4001.638 Potato peelings, steamed Aardappelstoomschillen, vers en kuil 460
4001.638 Potato peelings, steamed Aardappelstoomschillen, vers en kuil 462
4001.227 Potato pulp, pressed, Aardappelpersvezels, buitenl. herkomst 464
4001.226 Potato pulp, pressed, Dutch origin Aardappelpersvezels, vers en kuil, NL 466
4001.231 Potato starch, gelatinised Aardappelzetmeel, ontsloten, vers 468
4001.231 Potato starch, gelatinised Aardappelzetmeel, ontsloten, vers 470
610
Code English Dutch
4001.231 Potato starch, gelatinised Aardappelzetmeel, ontsloten, vers 472
4001.231 Potato starch, gelatinised Aardappelzetmeel, ontsloten, vers 474
4001.222 Potato starch, untreated, liquid Aardappelzetmeel, niet ontsl., vloeibaar 476
4001.222 Potato starch, untreated, liquid Aardappelzetmeel, niet ontsl., vloeibaar 478
4001.222 Potato starch, untreated, liquid Aardappelzetmeel, niet ontsl., vloeibaar 480
4001.223 Potato starch, untreated, solid Aardappelzetmeel, niet ontsl., steekvast 482
4004.244 Sugarbeet pulp, pressed, ensiled Bietenperspulp, vers en kuil 484
1010.234 Wheat starch Tarwezetmeel 486
1010.234 Wheat starch Tarwezetmeel 488
1010.234 Wheat starch Tarwezetmeel 490
1010.234 Wheat starch Tarwezetmeel 492
1010.689 Wheat yeast concentrate Tarwegistconcentraat 494
1010.689 Wheat yeast concentrate Tarwegistconcentraat 496
1010.689 Wheat yeast concentrate Tarwegistconcentraat 498
6020.000 Apples, fresh Appelen, vers 502
1005.508 Barley straw Gerstestro 503
2001.508 Bean straw (Phaseolus) Bonenstro (Phaseolus) 504
2002.508 Bean straw (Vicia) Bonenstro (Vicia) 505
4010.000 Beetroot Kroten, rode biet 506
6023.102 Cabbage (Brussels sprouts) Kool (spruitkool) 507
6023.101 Cabbage (Brussels sprouts, stem and leaves) Kool (spruitkool, kop+stengels) 508
6023.103 Cabbage (cauliflower) Kool (bloemkool) 509
6023.105 Cabbage (marrowstem) Kool (mergkool) 510
6023.000 Cabbage (red/white/sav.), fresh Kool (rood/wit/sav.), vers 511
4012.000 Cabbage (turnip cabbage), fresh Kool (koolrapen), vers 512
6023.104 Cabbage (winterrape) Kool (bladkool) 513
4006.000 Carrots Wortelen/Winterpeen 514
4015.639 Chicory leaves, ensiled Cichoreiloof, kuil 515
4015.642 Chicory leaves, fresh Cichoreiloof, vers 516
6019.644 Chicory roots, forced, clean Witlofwortelen, getrokken, schoon 517
6019.643 Chicory roots, not forced Witlofwortelen, niet getrokken 518
5003.610 Clover red, artificially dried Klaver rode, kunstmatig gedroogd 519
5003.602 Clover red, ensiled Klaver rode, kuil 520
5003.000 Clover red, fresh Klaver rode, vers 521
5003.606 Clover red, hay Klaver rode, hooi 522
5003.508 Clover red, straw Klaver rode, stro 523
1002.515 Corn cob silage Maiskolvensilage, (MKS) 524
6006.000 Cucumber, fresh Komkommer, vers 525
6010.000 Endive, fresh Andijvie, vers 526
611
Code English Dutch
5001.602 Field beans (Vicia faba) ensiled Veldbonen (Vicia faba), ingekuild 527
4005.000 Fodderbeets, fresh Voederbieten, vers 528
6018.000 Gherkin, fresh Augurk, vers 529
5010.701 Grass hay, a) poor quality Grashooi, a) matig 530
5010.702 Grass hay, b) average quality Grashooi, b) gemiddeld 531
5010.703 Grass hay, c) good quality Grashooi, c) goed 532
5010.704 Grass hay, d) horses, fine Grashooi, d) paarden, fijn 533
5010.705 Grass hay, e) horses, middle Grashooi, e) paarden, middel 534
5010.711 Grass hay, f) horses, course Grashooi, f) paarden, grof 535
5010.508 Grass seed straw Graszaadstro 536
5010.140 Grass silage, a) clay soil, before 21 June Graskuil, a) kleigrond, vóór 21 juni 537
5010.141 Grass silage, b) sandy soil, before 21 June Graskuil, b) zandgrond, vóór 21 juni 538
5010.142 Grass silage, c) peat soil, before 21 June Graskuil, c) veengrond, vóór 21 juni 539
5010.150 Grass silage, d) clay soil, 21 June - 21 August Graskuil, d) kleigrond, 21 juni - 21 augustus 540
5010.151 Grass silage, e) sandy soil, 21 June - 21 August Graskuil, e) zandgrond, 21 juni - 21 augustus 541
5010.152 Grass silage, f) peat soil, 21 June - 21 August Graskuil, f) veengrond, 21 juni - 21 augustus 542
5010.160 Grass silage, g) clay soil, after 21 August Graskuil, g) kleigrond, na 21 augustus 543
5010.161 Grass silage, h) sandy soil, after 21 August Graskuil, h) zandgrond, na 21 augustus 544
5010.162 Grass silage, i) peat soil, after 21 August Graskuil, i) veengrond, na 21 augustus 545
5010.170 Grass silage, j) average Graskuil, j) gemiddelde 546
5010.190 Grass silage, k) horses, fine Graskuil, k) paarden, fijn 547
5010.191 Grass silage, l) horses, middle Graskuil, l) paarden, middel 548
5010.192 Grass silage, m) horses, course Graskuil, m) paarden, grof 549
5010.609 Grass, artificially dried Gras, kunstmatig gedroogd 550
5010.910 Grass, fresh, a) clay soil, before 21 June Gras, vers, a) kleigrond, vóór 21 juni 551
5010.911 Grass, fresh, b) sandy soil, before 21 June Gras, vers, b) zandgrond, vóór 21 juni 552
5010.912 Grass, fresh, c) peat soil, before 21 June Gras, vers, c) veengrond, vóór 21 juni 553
5010.920 Grass, fresh, d) clay soil, 21 June - 21 August Gras, vers, d) kleigrond, 21 juni - 21 augustus 554
5010.921 Grass, fresh, e) sandy soil, 21 June - 21 August Gras, vers, e) zandgrond, 21 juni - 21 augustus 555
5010.922 Grass, fresh, f) peat soil, 21 June - 21 August Gras, vers, f) veengrond, 21 juni - 21 augustus 556
5010.930 Grass, fresh, g) clay soil, after 21 August Gras, vers, g) kleigrond, na 21 augustus 557
5010.931 Grass, fresh, h) sandy soil, after 21 August Gras, vers, h) zandgrond, na 21 augustus 558
5010.932 Grass, fresh, i) peat soil, after 21 August Gras, vers, i) veengrond, na 21 augustus 559
5010.940 Grass, fresh, j) average Gras, vers, j) gemiddelde 560
5010.991 Grass, fresh, k) horses, cont. grazing Gras, vers, k) paarden, standweide 561
5010.990 Grass, fresh, l) horses, fresh pasture Gras, vers, l) paarden, verse weide 562
5037.602 Grass/clover, silage Gras/klaver, kuil 563
5037.602 Grass/clover, silage Gras/klaver, kuil 565
5028.000 Green cereals, fresh Snijgraan, vers 567
612
Code English Dutch
5028.602 Green cereals, silage Snijgraan, kuil 568
6012.000 Leek, fresh Prei, vers 569
6014.000 Lettuce, fresh Sla, vers 570
5004.609 Lucerne (alfalfa), artificially dried Luzerne, kunstmatig gedroogd 571
5004.602 Lucerne (alfalfa), ensiled Luzerne, kuil 572
5004.000 Lucerne (alfalfa), fresh Luzerne, vers 573
5004.606 Lucerne (alfalfa), hay Luzerne, hooi 574
5008.602 Maize silage Snijmais, kuil 575
5008.602 Maize silage Snijmais, kuil 577
5008.602 Maize silage Snijmais, kuil 579
5008.602 Maize silage Snijmais, kuil 581
1004.508 Oats straw Haverstro 583
4009.000 Onions, fresh Uien, vers 584
5007.639 Pea leaves, ensiled Erwtenloof, kuil 585
5007.642 Pea leaves, fresh Erwtenloof, vers 586
5007.508 Pea straw Erwtenstro 587
6021.000 Pears, fresh Peren, vers 588
4001.525 Potato peelings, ensiled Aardappelen, schillenkuil 589
4001.000 Potatoes, fresh Aardappelen, vers 590
4001.602 Potatoes, raw, ensiled Aardappelen, rauw, kuil 591
3009.508 Rape seed straw Raapzaadstro 592
1007.508 Rye straw Roggestro 593
6008.000 Spinach, fresh Spinazie, vers 594
4004.647 Sugarbeet leaves with tops, fresh Bietenblad met koppen, vers 595
4004.642 Sugarbeet leaves, fresh Bietenblad, vers 596
4004.639 Sugarbeet leaves, silage Bietenblad, kuil 597
4004.617 Sugarbeet rests, ensiled Bietenstaartjes, kuil 598
4004.000 Sugarbeets, fresh Suikerbieten, vers 599
5002.602 Sunflower, silage Zonnebloemen, kuil 600
6009.000 Sweet pepper, fresh Paprika, vers 601
6015.000 Tomatoes, fresh Tomaten, vers 602
1010.508 Wheat straw Tarwestro 603
5055.000 Whole crop silage (cereal) Gehele planten silage (graan) 604
613
10.4 Mineral feedstuffs
Standardised and apparent P
DCPpo
Mineral feedstuff Composition a digestibility pigs (resp. StaDCP
poultry
and AppDCP; %) **
Na Cl Ca Mg P min max mean mean
Salt 380 570
Limestone 380
Monosodium phosphate.0H2O;
190 239 87b
NaH2PO4
Monosodium phosphate.1H2O;
167 225 89b 91
NaH2PO4.1 H2O
Disodium phosphate 250 174 87.5 93.0 90
Monocalcium phosphate.1H2O
Ca(H2PO4)2.H2O 160 226 82.5 84.2 83 85
Origin: Belgium and Scandinavia
Monodicalcium phosphate:
* * 74.0 87.4 82 79
CaHPO4.Ca(H2PO4)2.H2O
Dicalcium phosphate.0 H2O 250 200 62.7 72.1 65 55
Dicalcium phosphate.2 H2O 240 182 68.8 79.9 71 78
Sodium calcium phosphate 60 311 181 60
Calcium magnesium phosphate
100 100 200 84
Mg(H2PO4)2 Ca(H2PO4)2.H2O
Sodium magnesium phosphate;
131 78 41 173 81b
NaMgPO4
Magnesium oxide 80 % 480
Magnesium oxide 72 % 436
a:
The mineral composition in this Table is based on the molecular relationships in the pure product.
b:
This figure is based on only one digestibility trial with a product form one manufacturer.
* :
the Ca/P ratio in this product is not constant.
**:
Because of the high P contents the standardised and apparent P digestibilities only differ 0.1% from each other. After rounding the values for
both parameters the values for both are the same.
614
615
10.5 Miscellaneous
10.5.1 Energy values organic acids
10.5.1.1 ATP yielding capacity for organic acids, glucose, sucrose and starch
10.5.1.2 VEM en VEVI values of organic acids, glucose, sucrose, and starch
616
10.5.1.3 NE2015, EW2015, MEpo, MEla, and MEbr values of organic acids, glucose,
sucrose and starch
Amino acid mol ATP/ mol ATP yielding NE2015 at EW2015 at NE2015 MEpo, MEla,
* AA according capacity NE2015 Sta Sta = 14.14 MEbr at ME
Van Milgen relative to = 14.14 MJ/kg and EW2015 DNFE = 17.32
(2002) starch MJ/kg = NE2015/8.8 MJ/kg
LYS 37 114 16.13 1.83 19.75
MET 29,5 89 12.60 1.43 15.43
THR 22 83 11.76 1.34 14.41
TRP 45 99 14.04 1.60 17.19
ILE 41 1.41 19.91 2.26 24.39
ARG 29 75 10.61 1.21 12.99
LEU 40 137 19.43 2.21 23.80
VAL 32 123 17.40 1.98 21.32
GLY 7 42 5.94 0.67 7.27
*: The energy values are valid for the pure products; for commercial products the energy values
presented in this Table must be corrected for the inclusion percentage in the commercial product.
For example; Lysine-HCl contains 78% LYS; the energy value of LYS shown in this Table must
then be multiplied with the factor 0.78.
a) Based on the purity of the commercial product the values shown in this Table should be
adapted.
b) Based on N (= 46,6 %) x 6.25.
617