FIELD PEAS IN LIVESTOCK DIETS. Karla Jenkins Cow/calf range management specialist, Panhandle Research and Extension Center

Similar documents
Objective. SROC Calf and Heifer Research Facility. Data for study

Supplementation Some protein, a lil energy, and minerals. Josh Davy MS, PAS, CRM UC Advisor Livestock and Range Tehama, Glenn, Colusa

Feeder Cattle Grades, Carcass Grades, & Meat Palatability. Shelby Filley Regional Livestock & Forages Specialist. Purpose

Successful Storage of By-Products

Greater p protein content is is a negative negative or rumin an s

Recent Canola Meal Research with Broilers ( )

March The newborn calf 3/14/2016. Risks and Benefits of Milk vs. Milk Replacers for. Low milk prices???? Incentive to lower SCC?

Effects of feeding brown midrib dwarf. performance and enteric methane. pearl millet silage on lactational. emission in dairy cows

OVERSEEDING EASTERN GAMAGRASS WITH COOL-SEASON GRASSES OR GRASS- LEGUME MIXTURES. Abstract

Preference, yield, and forage nutritive value of annual grasses under horse grazing

Some Hay Considerations

Feeding the preweaned calf. Dr. Peter S. Erickson Professor of Dairy Management and Extension Dairy Specialist

BEEF Effect of processing conditions on nutrient disappearance of cold-pressed and hexane-extracted camelina and carinata meals in vitro 1

ANIMAL SCIENCE RESEARCH CENTRE. Oats for intensively finished bulls TRIAL REPORT B46 (P065104) FOR EBLEX

SUPPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS FOR THE COW-CALF HERD

Management and Feeding of Holstein Steers

EFFECT OF HARVEST TIMING ON YIELD AND QUALITY OF SMALL GRAIN FORAGE. Carol Collar, Steve Wright, Peter Robinson and Dan Putnam 1 ABSTRACT

The U.S. Beef Industry Status Update and New Developments. Chris R. Calkins, Ph.D. Professor of Animal Science University of Nebraska Lincoln

The first checkoff-funded National Beef Tenderness

Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan Key Words: Aging, Beef, Meat Quality, Tenderness

Bærme som proteinfoder til lakterende køer

Beef Customer Satisfaction: Cooking Method and Degree of Doneness Effects on the Top Loin Steak 1

200 Trop Anim Prod :3

Effect of Breed on Palatability of Dry-Cured Ham. S.J. Wells, S.J. Moeller, H.N. Zerby, K.M. Irvin

Sunflower Meal. in Beef Cattle Diets

Warm-Season Annual Legumes: Past, Present, and Future

Feeding Raw or Heat-treated Whole Soybeans to Dairy Cattle 1

Non-Structural Carbohydrates in Forage Cultivars Troy Downing Oregon State University

Effect of Different Levels of Grape Pomace on Performance Broiler Chicks

Determining the optimum beef longissimus muscle size for retail consumers 1

Japan Consumer Trial Results

Feeding Prickly Pear Cactus (PCC) to Ruminants

RELATIONSHIP OF TOTAL IRON CONTENT IN BEEF TO FLAVOR ATTRIBUTES 1. J. P. Grobbel, M. E. Dikeman, G. A. Milliken 2, E. J. Yancey 3

Maejo International Journal of Science and Technology

José C. Dubeux; UFRPE Brazil USE OF CACTUS FOR LIVESTOCK FEEDING

Annual Grasses Preserved as Silage: Fermentation Characteristics, Nutritive Value, and Quality

Sunflower Meal. in Beef Cattle Diets. Greg Lardy Animal Sciences Department Head

F&N 453 Project Written Report. TITLE: Effect of wheat germ substituted for 10%, 20%, and 30% of all purpose flour by

EFFECTS OF MICROWAVE COOKING RATE ON PALATABILITY OF PORK LOIN CHOPS

Effect of chickling vetch (Lathyrus sativus L.) or alfalfa (Medicago sativa) hay in gestating ewe diets

Interactions of forage quality and quantity, their implications in grazing and hay management

Forestry, Leduc, AB, T9E 7C5, Canada. Agriculture/Forestry Centre, Edmonton, AB T6G 2P5, Canada. *

National Beef Tenderness Survey

COMPARISON OF CONCENTRATED SEPARATOR BY-PRODUCT TO MOLASSES AS AN ANIMAL FEED SOURCE

EFFECTS OF CONVENTIONAL AND MICROWAVE COOKING METHODS ON CHARACTERISTICS OF REFORMED BEEF ROASTS

21 st Annual IAOM MEA District Conference November 22-25, 2009 Cape Town South Africa. Oats & Its Milling. Dr. Irfan Hashmi

The Sugarcane Industry and Rabbit Feed Manufacture

Working with your processor. Objectives. Meat Processor 11/15/2010. Josh Elmore, PAS Advisor III, Natural Resource Program

Silage Corn Variety Trial in Central Arizona

Factors Affecting the Quality Silage After Harvest. Fermentation. Aerobic stability. Aerobic Stability of Silages?

Stacey Hamilton, PhD State Dairy Specialist Scott E. Poock, DVM, DABVP Associate Extension Professor

Faba Bean. Uses of Faba Bean

Forage Systems to Increase Productivity

AMARANTH PRODUCTIVITY AND NUTRIENT COMPOSITION IN CENTRAL GEORGIA

Managing for Corn Silage Yield and Quality. Ev Thomas Miner Institute

ABSTRACT. Keywords: buffalo s milk, cream cheese, malunggay, sensory quality INTRODUCTION

The Gold Standard in Pork

Project Summary. Identifying consumer preferences for specific beef flavor characteristics

Department of Animal Science, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College Station

2015/02/15. Spineless cactus pear as livestock feed in South Africa. Feed production South Africa /14

Beef Primals Price Trends

The Effect of Whey Protein Concentrate or Dried Skim Milk in Milk Replacer on Calf Performance and Blood Metabolites 1

IMPACT OF OVERSEEDING COOL-SEASON ANNUAL FORAGES ON SPRING REGROWTH OF TIFTON 85 BERMUDAGRASS 1. Abstract

Red Clover Varieties for North-Central Florida

Lamb and Mutton Quality Audit

Meat quality of Merino lamb and yearlings how does it stack up?

Molasses-Based Feeds and Their Use as Supplements for Brood Cows 1

Cool-Season Annual Forages for Hay in North Dakota

Laboratory Research Proposal Streusel Coffee Cake with Pureed Cannellini Beans

Net Energy of Sweet Corn Husk and Cob Silage Calculated from Digestibility in Cows

The Potential for Teff as an Alternative Forage Crop for Irrigated Regions

Brassica juncea and Brassica napus seed as

Effects of Ground Ear Corn vs. Ear Corn Silage on Rumen Fatty Acid Content

Factors Affecting the Quality Silage

2016 Corn Silage Field Crop Trials Results

Effect of Different Levels of Grape Pomace on Blood Serum Biochemical Parameters Broiler Chicks at 29 and 49 days of age

Relationships Between Descriptive Beef Flavor Attributes and Consumer Liking

FFA Meat Judging CDE

Finnish feed evaluation system and Feed Tables

Na onal Beef Tenderness Survey 2015

Full Length Research Paper. A.G. Mahala 1, S.O. Amasiab 1, Monera.A. Yousif 1 and A. Elsadig 2

HARVESTING MAXIMUM VALUE FROM SMALL GRAIN CEREAL FORAGES. George Fohner 1 ABSTRACT

The Effectiveness of Homemade Egg Substitutes Compared to Egg Beaters. Nicole Myer F&N 453-Food Chemistry November 21, 2005

2010 Spring Cereal Grain Forage Trials

QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF CHEESE PRODUCED FROM THREE BREEDS OF CATTLE IN NIGERIA

COMPARISON OF SEEDING RATES AND COATING ON SEEDLING COUNT, ROOT LENGTH, ROOT WEIGHT AND SHOOT WEIGHT OF CRIMSON CLOVER

Corn Silage for Dairy Cows 1

2007 Texas Panhandle Forage Sorghum Silage Trial

Effect of grape pomace supplementation on broiler performance and eating quality

Price and Information List

2014 Organic Silage Corn Variety Trial for Coastal Humboldt County

MIDDLE SCHOOL QUESTIONS

,**0 ,**/ Kung Boe Havrevoll +33- ; Kung ; Morita +333 ;,*** ,**- ; Maatje +33- ;,**.

Canola Rotations in Alberta. Murray Hartman Oilseed Specialist

Cultivar and Germplasm Release

SPONGE CAKE APPLICATION RESEARCH COMPARING THE FUNCTIONALITY OF EGGS TO EGG REPLACERS IN SPONGE CAKE FORMULATIONS RESEARCH SUMMARY

From the Ranch to the Dinner Plate. Inspecting Beef Grading Beef Branding Beef Enhancing Beef Color of Beef

MEAT WEBQUEST Foods and Nutrition

FORAGE YIELD AND SOILBORNE MOSAIC VIRUS RESISTANCE OF SEVERAL VARIETIES OF RYE, TRITICALE, AND WHEAT

Price and Information List

Transcription:

FIELD PEAS IN LIVESTOCK DIETS Karla Jenkins Cow/calf range management specialist, Panhandle Research and Extension Center

Nutritional Content of Field Peas for Beef Cattle Crude protein can be variable but generally has been around 22-26% CP About 80% of that crude protein is degradable intake protein Starch content is about 34% vs. 73 in corn Palatability is very good in field peas

Field Peas for Finishing Cattle Treatment (Peas, % DM basis) P-value Item 0 10 20 30 L Q Initial BW, lb 904 893 895 906 0.05 0.40 Final BW, lb 1399 1434 1410 1448 0.68 0.27 ADG, lb/d 4.18 4.55 4.31 4.53 0.97 0.33 DMI, lb/d 27.1 27.5 26.8 26.9 0.16 0.85 F:G 6.48 6.01 6.22 5.94 0.52 0.40 NEm Mcal/lb 0.86 0.90 0.89 0.93 0.29 0.39 Neg Mcal/lb 0.57 0.60 0.59 0.62 0.33 0.42

Sensorial Attributes and WBSF of Muscle from Steers Fed Field Peas Pea inclusion, DM basis P-value Item 0% 10% 20% 30% SE Linear Quad Overall like 6.32 6.47 6.34 6.66 0.10 0.02 0.01 Tenderness 5.99 6.26 6.09 6.45 0.14 0.002 0.06 WB shear force, kg 3.95 3.87 3.65 3.61 0.12 0.02 0.86 Juiciness 5.73 5.78 5.72 6.02 0.14 0.67 0.64 Flavor 6.39 6.45 6.36 6.63 0.09 0.23 0.12 Overall like (1-dislike extremely, 9-like extremely), Tenderness (1- extremely tough, 9- extremely tender), Juiciness (1-extremely dry, 9- extremely juicy) Flavor (1 dislike extremely, 9 like extremely)

Field Peas for Finishing Cattle Field peas replaced dry rolled corn up to 30% of the DM without impacts on performance Including field peas in the finishing diet improved tenderness

Field Peas and WDGS in Finishing Diets 0 Peas 20 Peas P-values Item 0 WDGS 30 WDGS 0 WDGS 30 WDGS SEM Peas WDGS Peas x WDGS Final BW, lb 1397 1489 1390 1478 18 0.32 <0.01 0.83 DMI, lb/d 24.9 b 25.5 b,c 23.5 a 26.2 c 0.7 0.30 <0.01 <0.01 ADG, lb/d 4.11 4.73 4.07 4.66 0.11 0.33 <0.01 0.82 G:F 0.165 a 0.185 c 0.172 b 0.177 b,c 0.002 0.96 <0.01 <0.01 F:G 6.06 5.39 5.77 5.62

Carcass Characteristics 0 Peas 20 Peas P-values Item 0 WDGS 30 WDGS 0 WDGS 30 WDGS SEM Peas WDGS Peas x WDGS HCW, lb 881 940 877 933 5.1 0.33 <0.01 0.80 LM area, in 2 13.2 13.3 13.2 13.1 0.76 0.37 0.99 0.66 12 th rib fat, in 0.60 0.65 0.60 0.67 0.01 0.40 <0.01 0.25 Calc. YG 3.54 3.86 3.51 3.95 0.049 0.54 <0.01 0.24 Marbling 1 595 a 576 a,b 563 b 588 a 8.7 0.30 0.72 0.01 1 Marbling Score: 500 = Small, 600 = Modest

Field Peas and WDGS in Finishing Diets Field peas G:F 4% WDGS improvement in G:F relative to corn: 40% without peas, 24% with peas Acceptable performance when field peas and WDGS replace 50% corn

Field Peas as a Binder for DDGS Cubes Heifers fed.6 lb dm protein/hd/d 2.3 lb as is DDG 3.5 lb as is cubes Steers fed.6 lb dm protein/hd/d 2.3 lb as is DDG 2.7 lb as is cubes Rotated through pastures every 2 wks

Field Peas and Dried Distillers Grains DDG ground DDG bunk DDG/pea cube on ground SE Initial weight, 735 737 732 24 lb Final weight, lb 879 a 901 b 899 b 24 Daily gain, lb 1.34 a 1.54 b 1.56 b 0.15 Values with differing superscripts differ P < 0.01

Evaluation of Field Peas for Beef Cattle Field peas have about 30% less starch than corn Starch has negative associative effects on fiber digestion The DIP (Degradable Intake Protein) is 75-80% of the CP This aids fiber digestion

Evaluation of Field Peas for Beef Cattle Study objectives: 1) evaluate field peas as a supplement for grazing cattle relative to corn 2) investigate an interaction between the use of field peas as a grazed supplement and as a corn replacement in finishing diets,

Evaluation of Field Peas for Beef Cattle 3) determine if field peas can improve tenderness by supplementation in the growing phase 4) to evaluate the impact of field peas on digestibility of low and high quality forage as well as better quantify the degradable intake protein content of field peas.

Evaluation of Field Peas for Beef Cattle 2 year study, 3 x 2 factorial design Pasture treatments: No supplement Corn (with urea and solubles) (0.05% BW) Peas (0.05% BW) Feedlot: Dry rolled corn based diet No peas 20% DM as peas

Effect of corn or pea Supplement on growing Calf performance YR. 1 & 2 P- value Control 1 Corn Peas SED Trt Year Trt*Year Initial BW, lb 656 654 654 3 0.84 0.10 0.91 Ending BW, lb 835 c 910 a 879 b 9.5 <0.01 0.14 0.62 ADG, lb/d 1.36 c 1.95 a 1.72 b 0.08 <0.01 0.14 0.34 abc Within a row, means without a common superscript differ. 1 Treatments: Cattle grazed 117 days (2014) or 142 days (2015) either without supplement or supplemented at 0.5% of body weight with either dry rolled corn ( and solubles) or field peas.

Effect of field peas on performance in finishing diets: YR 1 Finishing No Peas Peas P-value Trt 1 Growing Trt 2 Control Corn Peas Control Corn Peas Growing Finishing Intera ction Initial BW, 899 cd 984 a 926 c 872 d 951 b 949 b <0.001 0.128 0.058 lb Final BW, lb 3 1428 1460 1417 1402 1422 1411 0.458 0.266 0.791 ADG, lb 4.25 a 3.69 b 4.03 b 4.21 a 3.87 b 3.57 b 0.036 0.342 0.141 DMI, lb 32.2 31.3 30.6 31.7 31.3 31.5 0.367 0.805 0.553 G:F, lb:lb 0.131 a 0.120 b 0.131 a 0.136 a 0.123 b 0.116 b 0.027 0.339 0.057 abcd Within a row, means without a common superscript differ. 1 Finishing Treatment: Cattle with peas in the diet had 20% of the dry matter of the diet as peas (by displacing dry rolled corn). The No Peas diet still included that 20% as dry rolled corn. 2 Growing Treatment: Cattle were grazed for 117 days either without supplement or supplemented at 0.5% of body weight with either dry rolled corn or field peas depending on assigned treatment. 3 Final BW: Calculated as HCW 0.63 4 Marbling: 400 = Slight 00 : 500 = Small 00 5 Calculated Yield Grade: 2.50 + (2.5 12 th Rib Fat, in.) (0.32 REA, in 2 ) + (0.2 2.5) + (0.0038 HCW, lb)

Effect of field peas on performance in finishing diets: YR 1 Carcass Performance Finish Trt No peas Peas P values Growing Trt Control Corn Peas Control Corn Peas Grow Finish Interact HCW, lb 900 920 893 883 896 889 0.459 0.268 0.798 12 th Rib 0.151 0.834 0.630 Fat, in. 0.50 0.51 0.57 0.53 0.50 0.54 Ribeye 13.9 14.1 13.7 13.2 13.9 13.3 0.422 0.240 0.832 Area, in 2 Marbling 492 482 499 497 497 482 0.977 0.959 0.843 4 Calculate d YG 5 3.23 3.29 3.41 3.44 3.16 3.53 0.415 0.635 0.589 abcd Within a row, means without a common superscript differ. 1 Finishing Treatment: Cattle with peas in the diet had 20% of the dry matter of the diet as peas (by displacing dry rolled corn). The No Peas diet still included that 20% as dry rolled corn. 2 Growing Treatment: Cattle were grazed for 117 days either without supplement or supplemented at 0.5% of body weight with either dry rolled corn or field peas depending on assigned treatment. 3 Final BW: Calculated as HCW 0.63 4 Marbling: 400 = Slight 00 : 500 = Small 00 5 Calculated Yield Grade: 2.50 + (2.5 12 th Rib Fat, in.) (0.32 REA, in 2 ) + (0.2 2.5) + (0.0038 HCW, lb)

New Plans Two levels of DDGS (0.4 and 0.8% BW) Two levels of peas Determine feeding value of peas relative to DDGS

kjenkins2@unl.edu 308 632-1245