International Journal of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry .

IJVSAH
Vol. 6(1), pp. 048-052, March, 2020. © www.premierpublishers.org ISSN: 8991-0338

Research Article

Performance by Layer upon Substitution of Soybean

Meal with Mung Bean Protein Concentrate
*1Ganga Maya Rizal and 2Jowaman Kajarern
1Animal Nutrition Division, Department of Livestock, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Thimphu, Bhutan
2Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon kaen, Thailand

This experiment assessed substitution level of soybean meal by mung bean protein concentrate
(MBPC) in layer’s diet. Unsatiating demand for animal protein, the need to prudently utilize feeding
resources and minimize footprints in food chain/business, use of local raw-material is imperative.
180 ISA Brown2000 hens, assigned to 9 treatments (2 replications, 10 hens each) were fed
experimental diets for 4 periods (49-52wks) and were evaluated for their performance. Their diet
contained 2 grades of MBPC (70% CP and 75% CP). T1 was control diet. T2-T5 contained MBPC
(70% CP) at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% substitution levels, respectively. T6-T9 contained MBPC
(75% CP) at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% substitution levels, respectively. The results revealed that
egg production (%) and egg mass were not significantly different in 1st three periods but it was
in the 4th period (P<0.05). T1 had the highest egg production (%) but not significantly different in
overall periods. Progressively decreasing egg production and FCR was observed through the
periods without a significant difference. Egg weight was significantly different in 4th period.
Economic benefit returns (EBR) was not significantly different among treatments. It is concluded
that MBPC (70% & 75% CP) can substitute 25% SBM in layer’s diet without adverse effect on
performance and EBR.

Key words: mung bean protein concentrate, soybean meal, substitution, performance, layer

INTRODUCTION

Protein plays a major role in delivering the bodily functions
of stages of development. Further, in layers, egg is a high
quality protein which is often taken as one of the reference
proteins (Herron and Fernandez, 2004). Therefore, rearing
profitable, healthy poultry means assurance of protein
source that can meet the nutritional and production
demands of the layer.
Poultry raised for eggs requires idle feed for it to be
economically efficient. The NRC (1994) suggests that
besides balancing energy and protein ratio, focused
attention is required to balance amino acid requirement for
optimized egg production and egg quality. The balance of
amino acids is also important to safeguard health and
maintain desired body weight throughout her laying period.
Though balanced nutrition can be achieved by use of local
legumes and food by-products, such a feed requires
adequate supplementation of essential synthetic amino
acids for economic benefit returns (Pesti, 1991; Parsons,
et al., 1993; Shim et al., 2013).
Soybean contributes about two-thirds of the world’s protein
concentrate for livestock feeding (Agrawal et al, 2013)
thereby easing protein deficiency around the world. Thus,
use of soybean has been the strongest backup to
technological advancement in animal nutrition, enabling
production of huge quantities of animal protein. Soybean
has been used as meal and fullfat soya because of its
excellent amino acid balance (Popović et al., 2015, 2016;
Rada et al, 2017; Peiretti et al, 2018). Monogastric animal
diets formulated with soybean meal and full fat soya are
often taken as standard/ basal in many nutritional
experiments. However, its limited supply and ever-
increasing market price has been the major challenge in
meeting the demand for good quality plant proteins to feed
*Corresponding Author: Ganga Maya Rizal, Department
of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen
University, Khon kaen, Thailand.
Email: gmrizal@gmail.com; Tel: +975-17806570
Co-Author Email: jowaman@kku.ac.th

Performance by Layer upon Substitution of Soybean Meal with Mung Bean Protein Concentrate
Rizal and Kajarern 049
the animals (Siddhuraju and Becker, 2003; Chisoro P,
2015). In such challenging times, animal nutritionists seek
for alternatives protein sources that are more economical
in formulating least cost rations (Tufarelli and Laudadio,
2015). Some of such legumes already in use in animal
feeding are mung bean, chickpea, peas, pigeon pea, lentil,
cowpea, groundnut, etc. (Robinson and Singh, 2001;
Jansman 2005).
Local legumes utilized as human food and animal feed
have lower quality protein with unbalanced amino acid
profile. More often, sulfur-amino acids are limiting in
legumes (Tang et al., 2014; Koivunen E, 2016; Zhu et al.,
2018). Therefore, local legumes can be used only for
substituting soybean meal at smaller levels in the animal
diet. Inclusion of local legumes in monogastric animals’
diet, at a higher substitution levels have resulted in slower
or reduced growth, FCR and hence the Economic Benefit
Return (Ivusic et al., 1994). Further, presence of Anti-
Nutritional Factors in legumes hinders their digestibility
and absorption of nutrients present in legumes. However,
it has been observed that processing legumes by heat
treatment improves its digestibility and access to its
nutrients for growth and production (Oghbaei and Prakash,
2015).
Mung bean with 26 to 28% crude protein is rich in some
essential amino acids including aromatic amino acids such
as leucine, isoleucine, valine and glutamic acid (Tang et
al. 2009). However, it has deficiencies in sulphur-
containing amino acids, methionine and cysteine (Zhu et
al., 2018). Due to presence of high levels of proteins,
amino acids, oligosaccharides, and polyphenols mung
bean is thought to contribute to medicinal properties
against hypertension, diabetes, inflammation and tumors
(Vanamala J, et al. 2006; Anjum N A, et al. 2011; Kanatt S
R, et al., 2011). Therefore, mung bean is demanded for
food as well as livestock feed. It is also extensively used in
starch extraction for vermicelli noodle production
(Thanomsub S, 2003; Rungcharoen P et al., 2013) making
it an even more expensive local bean.
Use of by-products as animal feed from food processing
industries has huge potential for producing good quality
meat, minimize wastes (Szebiotko K, 1985) and reduce
competition with man for food resources. Although there is
general variability in the chemical composition of by-
products, feeding quality in term of crude protein and
metabolizable and net energy content, level of amino
acids, primarily lysine and methionine must be assessed
(Fomunyam T R, 1985).
Though there are multiple benefits in utilizing food
processing by-products, little is done to maximize the
exploitation of these by-products as potential feed
sources. However, production or use of chemicals during
food processing and mixing ingredients from varied
sources can pose potential risk to younger animals and
feed palatability by animals (Sapkota et al., 2007).
Performance by Layer upon Substitution of Soybean Meal with Mung Bean Protein Concentrate
Processing of mung bean in a vermicelli noodle industry
consists of seed-milling, starch extracting and protein
segregation. The by-product (protein concentrate) of this
process is called Mung Bean Protein Concentrate (MBPC)
(Feedipedia, Rungchareon et al., 2013). It is used as a
feed material (Shu et al., 2002) in some of the small farms
in Thailand but is not officially documented as there is
negligible literature (Rungchareon, et al., 2013) on it.
The physical and chemical characteristics of the feeding
materials have considerable impact in the performance by
the livestock. The MBPC is characterized by high crude
protein content (70 to 75 %), light green colour and high
particle density (63.4% and 55.8%, respectively). In vitro
Pepsin digestibility was agreeable at 74.7% and 76.1%,
respectively, with 0.002% pepsin concentration compared
to 61.40 and 61.1 % digestibility at 0.0002% pepsin (G.m
Rizal and J. Kajarern, Khon Kaen Univeristy, individual
communication). Quality of protein depends on seeds,
from which they are produced, and the amount of hull and/
or seed coat included and the method of extraction Bajaj
(1969). Heating involved in processing lower amino acid
digestion and availability which adversely affects
nutritional value of proteins. Similarly, (Gilani et al., 2018)
found that D -amino acids and lysinoalanine formed during
alkaline/heat treatment of proteins (Finley J W, 2009) are
poorly digestible (less than 40%), and their presence can
reduce protein digestibility by up to 28%. The study
conducted by Rungchareon et al., (2013) reveals a similar
feedstuff, which is a by-product of vermicelli noodle
production. However, their experimental feed contained
only 12% crude protein. The trail resulted in poor
performance by the broiler which is in agreement with
current study of reduced performance by the layer.
Maillard reaction, also called the non-enzymatic browning
reaction, is a reaction between amino groups and reducing
compounds. Maillard reaction is known to cause a serious
deterioration of food quality during processing and storage
(Lund and Ray, 2017). Increasing evidence show that
these compounds formed under mild conditions
substantially reduce the bioavailability of amino acids and
proteins. There is a significant decrease nutritional value
of food which undergo Maillard reaction beyond that
accounted for loss biologically available lysine. Apart from
the decrease in the nutritive value resulting from the
unavailable amino acids and destruction of other food
components such as ascorbic acid, some of the browning
reaction products are actually toxic. Heating such amino
acids as lysine, glutamic acid, and alanine with glucose at
100°C in presence of air can also induce the formation of
N-nitrosamines, which have been shown to be
carcinogenic (Lee and Shibamoto, 2011). Young et al.,
(1990) noted that the initial response to an inadequate
amino acids or nitrogen intake is a reduction in the rate of
amino acid oxidation. This is followed by or simultaneously
associated with a decline in the rate of specific organ and
tissue protein synthesis. Protein and amino acid
metabolism in both muscle and liver is profoundly affected
 Int. J. Vet. Sci. Anim. Husb. 050

by the restricted dietary protein (amino acids) intake, with
reduced rates of muscle protein synthesis and of the
synthesis of export proteins from liver occurring at a
relatively early period. These changes lead to an altered
pattern of body protein distribution, with skeletal proteins
being the most effected, to a greater extent than the body
protein mass (Waterlow et al., 1978). The objective of the
present study is to evaluate the performance and
substitution level of two kinds of MBPC (70% and 75% CP)
in place of soybean meal, in the diets of laying hen and
their egg quality.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A total of 180 laying hens (ISA Brown 2000) were selected
at 49 weeks from a flock raised under standard
management condition. A study was carried out for four
periods (4 x 28d = 112d), cages were randomly assigned
among nine treatments with two replicates, each with 10
hens; hens maintained on a light program of 17 h light and
7h darkness. The sample MBPC (70% & 75% CP) was
supplied by SahaMit Company in Bangkok (K.S.D. AGRI
PRODUCTS CO. LTD. 2018.). The treatment diets were
formulated and fed as: T1= Control (Basal diet); T2= 75%
SBM + 25% MBPC (70% CP); T3 = 50% SBM + 50%
MBPC (70% CP); T4 = 25% SBM + 75% MBPC (70% CP);
T5=0 % SBM + 100% MBPC (70% CP); T6 = 75% SBM +
25% MBPC (75% CP); T7 = 50% SBM + 50% MBPC (75%
CP); T8 = 25% SBM + 75% MBPC (75% CP); T9 = 0%
SBM + 100% MBPC (75% CP).
Composition of basal diet is shown in Table 1. Feed and
water were provided ad libitum through 4 periods. Before
starting the experiment, the hens were adjusted to control
diet for one month. Eggs were collected and weighted
daily. Feed consumption was determined weekly. Over the
entire experiment period, the following data were
collected: level of egg production, average feed intake,
egg weight and egg mass. Feed Conversion Ratio was
calculated. The experimental design was CRD. All data
were analyzed using General Linear Model (GLM)
procedures for contrast between control diet and MBPC
(70% & 75% CP) and between MBPC with 70% and 75%
CP. The variance was analyzed using ANOVA and the
differences within the means were analyzed using
Duncan’s New Multiple Range Tests (SAS, 1997). The
economic benefit return was calculated based on the net
benefit received by feeding the experimental diet and
selling price of the eggs (Thai currency, Bhat).

Table 1. Composition of basal diet for laying hen

Ingredients Treatments
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9
Ground yellow corn 54.00 56.70 59.50 62.30 65.00 57.05 60.15 63.25 66.30
MBPC 70% CP - 3.50 7.10 10.60 14.20 - - - -
MBPC 75% CP - - - - - 3.30 6.55 9.80 13.10
Rice bran 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Fish meal 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50
Rice bran oil 2.00 1.80 1.40 1.10 0.80 1.65 1.30 0.95 0.60
Soybean meal 24.00 18.00 12.00 6.00 - 18.00 12.00 6.00 -
DL-Methionine 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
L-Lysine 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
DiCalcium-Phosphate (P-18) 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49
Salt 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Ground limestone 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00
Premix1 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Cost (Bhat/ kg feed) 9.78 9.84 9.88 9.93 9.98 9.85 9.92 9.99 10.06
Major components
Crude protein (%) 18.55 18.53 18.59 18.58 18.63 18.59 18.59 18.60 18.64
ME (kcal/ kg) 2831.42 2840.97 2837.99 2841.71 2844.58 2833.88 2836.77 2839.67 2842.14
Fat (%) 5.73 5.55 4.87 4.58 5.41 5.09 4.76 4.44
Fiber (%) 2.98 2.66 2.34 2.02 1.69 2.67 2.35 2.03 1.71
Ash (%) 13.66 13.42 13.19 12.96 12.73 13.40 13.14 12.88 12.62
Calcium (%) 3.69 3.74 3.81 3.86 3.92 3.75 3.82 3.88 3.95
Phosphorus (%) 0.75 0.73 0.71 0.69 0.66 0.73 0.71 0.69 0.67
1A standard vitamin and mineral premix provided the following per kilogram of ration: vitamin A, 14440 IU; cholecalciferol,

2220 IU; vitamin K, 3.3mg; vitamin B1, 2.2 mg; vitamin B2, 6.7mg; nicotinic acid, 38.9mg; pantothenic acid, 15.6 mg; vitamin
B6, 6.7mg; vitamin B12, 0.028mg; folic acid, 1.1mg; biotin, 0.147mg; manganese, 50mg; iodine, 0.333mg; zinc, 88.9; iron,
66.7mg; copper, 8.9mg; selenium, 0.111mg; and antioxidant (BHT), 111.2mg.

Performance by Layer upon Substitution of Soybean Meal with Mung Bean Protein Concentrate
Rizal and Kajarern 051

RESULT AND DISCUSSION increasing inclusion levels of vermicelli waste linearly

decreased (p<0.05) apparent total tract digestibility of dry
Results on the performance by layers, fed two kinds of matter and crude fiber by broiler chicks. The growth
MBPC with four graded substitution levels (25, 50, 75 and performance was affected.
100%) are shown in Table 2. It can be seen that the egg
production (%), weight of eggs, FCR and EBR were not Pant and Tulsiani (1969) obtained similar results in 4-5-
significantly different (P<0.05) amongst treatments (T1 to week-old albino rats fed isolated globulin fractions of
T9). However, the number of egg produced and mass of mungbeans varieties to for 5 weeks. Body weight of
eggs were significantly (P<0.05) high for T1 (100% SMB). experimental animals gradually decreased under identical
There was no significant difference between the two conditions. They also suggested that amino acid in
MBPC (70% CP and 75% CP) on performance experimental varieties failed to promote growth as it
parameters. showed a total absence of tryptophan and a low level of
methionine.
In the fourth period (data not shown), all performance
parameters, except FCR, showed significant difference Thayer and Heller (1949) studied the utilization of
(P<0.05), exhibiting deterioration of production mungbeans in poultry feeds and made following
parameters. This deterioration and hence the difference recommendations: 1. satisfactory growth and production
could be attributed to limited or unavailable amino acids can be obtained when mungbeans are supplemented with
and accumulation of toxic substances (produced from animal protein and phosphorus. Ground mungbeans can
Millard reaction while processing MBPC). Since amino make up as much as 30% of poultry mash with satisfactory
acids are the building blocks of protein synthesis, their results. About 1 1/2 pounds of mungbeans are required to
presence in food/ feed in adequate quantity is important for replace 1 pound of cottonseed meal or soybean meal,
the animal to perform well. The experimental diet made out since mungbeans contain less protein.
of MBPC is unable to fully meet the amino acids
requirements of layers to perform well. Thus, from this Utilizing locally available, agricultural by-product feeding
experiment, it can be concluded that in layer’s diet, MBPC resources supports efforts put forward to reduce carbon
(70% and 75% CP) can be used at a substitution level of footprint in animal protein food chain. Use of local, by-
at least 25% without any adverse effect on performance product resources, at minimum, would reduce emissions
and for highest economic benefit returns. causing climate change without huge economic
differences. The feed material is more suitable in small to
The current experiment result is similar to those published medium scale poultry farms.
by Rungcharoen P et al., (2013). They concluded that
Table 2: Performance of laying hen fed graded levels of three sources of protein
Performance SBM (%) Levels of MBPC substituted (%) SEM MBPC
100 25 50 75 100 70% CP 75% CP SEM
% Egg production 88.07 81.63 81.42 82.17 80.92 1.52 81.40 81.66 1.48
Number of eggs 241.00a 228.55b 227.95b 230.07ab 226.56b 4.27 227.91 228.65 4.14
Weight of eggs (g) 63.72 65.87 65.35 64.20 66.23 0.94 64.90 65.92 1.08
Egg mass 54.84 53.73ab 52.59b 53.69ab 53.58ab 0.69 52.99 53.81 0.69
FCR 1.98 1.40 2.02 1.95 1.98 0.30 1.80 1.89 0.40
EBR (Thai Bhat) 1.12 1.20 1.15 1.17 1.12 0.05 1.12 1.19 0.04
MBPC = Mung Bean Protein Concentrate; SBM = Soybean Meal; T1 = Control; T2 to T5 = (25%, 50%, 75% and 100%
MBPC 70% CP) respectively; T6 to T9 = (25%, 50%, 75% and 100% MBPC 75% CP) respectively; SEM = Standard Mean
Error; FCR = Feed Conversion Ratio; EBR = Economic Benefit Return.

REFERENCE 2015/10/Alternative-protein-sources-for-poultry-feeds-
2700585W/. Accessed on 15 October, 2018.
Agrawal DK, Billore SD, Sharma AN, Dupare BU, Feedipedia. https://www.feedipedia.org/node/235.
Srivastava SK. (2013). Soybean: Introduction, Accessed 21 July, 2019.
Improvement, and Utilization in India—problems and Finley JW (2009). Lysoalanine formation in severely
prospects. Agri. Res.; 2(4):293-300. treated proteins. Chapter 12. Pp 203-220.
Anjum NA, Umar S, Iqbal M, Khan NA. (2011). Cadmium Doi: 10.1021/bk-1983-0234.ch012. ACS Symposium
causes oxidative stress in mung bean by affecting the Series, Vol. 234. ISBN13: 9780841208094
antioxidant enzyme system and ascorbate-glutathione eISBN: 9780841210622.
cycle metabolism. Russian J. Plant Physiol. 58:92-99. Fomunyam T R (1985). Potential and constraints in the
Chisoro P (2015). Alternative protein sources for poultry utilization of agro-industrial by-products in Cameroon.
feeds. New Proteins. All about feed. FAO.
https://www.allaboutfeed.net/New-Proteins/Articles/

Performance by Layer upon Substitution of Soybean Meal with Mung Bean Protein Concentrate

Gilani G S, Cockell K A, Sepehr S. (2005). Effects of
Antinutritional Factors on Protein Digestibility and
Amino Acid Availability in Foods. Journal of AOAC
International: 88 (3): 967-987.
Herron K L, Fernandez, M L (2004). Are the current
dietary guidelines regarding egg consumption
appropriate? J. Nutr. 134, 187–190.
Ivusic S I, Mirosh L W, Nakaue H S. (1994). Productivity
of laying pullets fed diets containing yellow peas
(Pisum sativum L. var. Miranda). Anim. Feed
Sci.Techn. 45:205–210.
Jansman A J M (2005). Grain legumes as functional
ingredients in animal feeds. Grain legumes 41: 12-12.
Kanatt SR, Arjun K, Sharma A. (2011). Antioxidant and
antimicrobial activity of legume hulls. Food Res Int. 44:
3182-3187. 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.08.022.
Koivunen E, Partanen K, Perttilä S, Palander S, Tuunainen
P, Valaja J. (2016). Digestibility and energy value of
pea (Pisum sativum L.), faba bean (Vicia faba L.) and
blue lupin (narrow-leaf) (Lupinus angustifolius) seeds in
broilers. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 218: 120-127.
Lee KG, Shimbamoto T (2002). Determination of
antioxidant potential of volatile extracts isolated from
various herbs and spices. J. Agric Food Chem 50:4947-
52.
Lund MN, Ray CA (2017). Control of Maillard Reactions in
Foods: Strategies and Chemical Mechanisms. J. Agric
Food Chem. 14; 65 :4537-4552. Doi:
10.1021/acs.jafc.7b00882.
NRC (1994). Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th rev. ed.
Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
Oghbaei M, Prakash J (2016). Effect of primary processing
of cereals and legumes on its nutritional quality: A
comprehensive review. Cogent Food Science and
Technology.
http://dx/doi.org/10/1080/23311932.1136015.
Pant R, and Tulsiani DRP. (1969). Solubility, amino acid
composition, and biological evaluation of proteins
isolated from leguminous seeds. J. Agr. Food Chem.
17:361.
Parsons C M, Koelkebeck K W, Zhang Y, Wang X, Leeper
R W. (1993). Effect of dietary protein and added fat
levels on performance of young laying hens. J. Appl.
Poult. Res. 2:214–220.
Peiretti P G, Meineri G, Longata E, Tassone S. (2018).
Nutritive value and fatty acid content of soybean plant
[Glycine Max (L) Merr. ] during its growth cycle.
Ruminant nutrition and feeding 17 (2):347-352.
Pesti G M (1991). Response surface approach to studying
the protein and energy requirement of laying hens.
Poult. Sci.70:103–114.
Popović V, Miladinovic J, Vidic M, Vuckovic S, Drazic G, I
kanovic J, Djekic V, Filipovic V. (2015). Determining
genetic potential and quality components of NS
soybean cultivars under different agro-ecological
conditions. Rom Agric Res. 32:35–42.
Popović V, Tatic M, Sikora V, Ikanovic J, Drazic G, Djukic
V, Mihailovic B, Filipovic V, Dozet G, Jovanovic L.
(2016). Variability of yield and chemical composition in
Performance by Layer upon Substitution of Soybean Meal with Mung Bean Protein Concentrate
Int. J. Vet. Sci. Anim. Husb. 052
soybean genotypes grown under different agro-
ecological conditions of Serbia. Rom Agric Res. 33:29–
39.
Rada V, Lichovnikova M, Safarik I. (2017). The effect of
soybean meal replacement with raw full-fat soybean in
diets for broiler chickens. 45 (1):112-117.
Robinson D, Singh D N. (2001). Alternative protein
sources for laying hens. A report for the rural industries
and development cooperation. Queensland poultry
research and development centre. RIRDC publication
No. 00/144 RIRD Project No. DAQ-241A.
Rungcharoen P N, Therdthai P, Dhamvithee S,
Attamangkune Y, Ruangpanit P R, Ferket,
Amornthewaphat N. (2013). By-product of Tropical
Vermicelli Waste as a Novel Alternative Feedstuff in
Broiler Diets. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 26
(12):1732-1741.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13133
Sapkota A R, Lefferts L Y, McKenzie S and Walker P.
2007. What do we feed to Food-Production Animals? A
review of animal feed ingredients and their potential
impacts on human health. Environmental health
perspectives. 115 (5): 663-670.
SAS. 1985. SAS User guide: statistics. Version 5th edition.
SAS Institute Inc, cary, NC.
Shim M Y, Song E, Billard L, Aggrey S E, Pesti G M,
Sodsee P. (2013). Effects of balanced dietary protein
levels on egg production and egg quality parameters of
individual commercial layers.
Shu L, Lee S, Jegatheesan V. (2002). A case study on
waste minimization and wastewater treatment in starch
and noodle factories. Environ. Eng. Res. 7(2):75-84.
Siddhuraju P, Becker K. (2003). Antioxidant properties of
various solvent extracts of total phenolic constituents
from three different agro-climatic origins of drumstick
tree (Moringa oleifera Lam.). Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry. 51: 2144–2155.10.1021/jf020444+
Szebiotko K. (1985). Utilization of Agroindustrial by-
products and crop residues by monogastric species in
Europe. FAO.
Tang D, Dong Y, Ren H, Li L, He C. (2014). A review of
phytochemistry, metabolic changes and medicinal uses
of common food mung bean and its sprouts (Vigna
radiata). Chemistry central journal. 8:4.
http://journalchemistrycentral.com/content/8/1/4
Thanomsub S. (2003). Chainat Field Crops Research
Center. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center (FFTC)
14 Wenchow St., Taipei, Taiwan ROC.
Thayer HR, Heller UA. (1949). Mungbeans as a poultry
feed. Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station,
Bulletin No. B336.
Tufarelli V and V Laudadio. (2015). Feeding of Dehulled-
micronized Faba Bean (Vicia faba var. minor) as
Substitute for Soybean Meal in Guinea Fowl Broilers:
Effect on Productive Performance and Meat Quality.
Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences.
28(10): 1471-1478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.
15.0245
Rizal and Kajarern 053

Vanamala J, Reddivari L, Yoo KS, Pike LM, Patil BS.

(2006). Variation in the content of bioactive flavonoids
in different brands of orange and grapefruit juices. J
Food Comp Anal. 19: 157-166.
10.1016/j.jfca.2005.06.002.
Waterlow J C, Garlick P J, Millward D J. (1978). Protein
turnover in mammalian tissues and in the whole body,
pp. 529-594. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Yound V R, Marchini J S, Cortiella J. (1990). Assessment
of protein nutritional status. Jounl. Nutri. 120:1496-
1502.
Zhu Y S, Shuai S, FitzGerald R. (2018). Mung bean
proteins and peptides: nutritional, functional and
bioactive properties. Food & Nutrition Research 62.
DOI. 10.29219/fnr.v62.1290.

Accepted 23 March 2020

Citation: Rizal GM, Kajarern J (2020). Performance by

Layer upon Substitution of Soybean Meal with Mung Bean
Protein Concentrate. International Journal of Veterinary
Science and Animal Husbandry 6(1): 048-053.

Copyright: © 2020 Rizal and Kajarern. This is an open-

access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.

Performance by Layer upon Substitution of Soybean Meal with Mung Bean Protein Concentrate