Three experiments were conducted to determine the effect of increasing field pea level in high-concentrate finishing cattle diets on ADG, DMI, G:F, and carcass traits, and to estimate the NE of field pea. In Exp. 1, 118 yearling heifers (417.9 +/- 2.4 kg initial BW) were blocked by initial BW and assigned randomly to 1 of 4 treatments (0, 10, 20, or 30% dry-rolled field pea, DM basis; 4 pens/treatment). In Exp. 2, 143 beef steers (433 +/- 19 kg initial BW) were blocked by BW and assigned randomly to 1 of 4 treatments (0, 10, 20, or 30% dry-rolled field pea, DM basis; 6 pens/treatment). In Exp. 3, 80 beef steers (372.4 +/- 0.4 kg initial BW) were assigned randomly to 1 of 4 treatments (0, 18, 27, or 36% cracked field pea, DM basis; 4 pens/treatment). Field pea replaced a portion of the grain (dry-rolled and high moisture corn, dry-rolled corn, and barley and barley sprouts; Exp. 1, 2, and 3, respectively) and protein supplement. In Exp. 1, field pea inclusion decreased DMI linearly (P = 0.03), whereas ADG and G:F were not affected by treatment (P > or = 0.17); however, dietary NE(g) increased quadratically with increasing field pea level (P = 0.04). Fat thickness responded quadratically (P = 0.008) where heifers fed 20% field pea had greatest fat thickness and 30% field pea inclusion the least. Marbling tended (P < or = 0.09) to respond quadratically as field pea increased. No differences (P > or = 0.17) were observed for HCW, LM area, or KPH. In Exp. 2, DMI, ADG, G:F, dietary NE(g), HCW, marbling, LM area, 12th-rib fat, and USDA yield grade (YG) were unaffected by dietary field pea inclusion (P > or = 0.12). In Exp. 3, marbling score increased linearly (P = 0.05), fat thickness increased quadratically (P = 0.01), and YG tended to increase (P = 0.07) quadratically as field pea increased. Field pea inclusion did not affect (P > or = 0.38) DMI, ADG, G:F, dietary NE(g), HCW, or LM area. These results indicate that field pea can be included successfully into rations at levels up to 36% of DM without negatively affecting growth performance and most carcass characteristics of finishing beef cattle; however, effects on marbling score were variable. These data also indicate the energy content of field peas is similar to cereal grains, such as corn and barley, when included in high-concentrate finishing diets.
[1]
T. R. Weston,et al.
Growth performance and carcass characteristics of lambs fed Carnival or Forager peas1
,
2011
.
[2]
V. Anderson,et al.
Effect of field peas, chickpeas, and lentils on rumen fermentation, digestion, microbial protein synthesis, and feedlot performance in receiving diets for beef cattle.
,
2007,
Journal of animal science.
[3]
V. Anderson,et al.
REVIEW: Field Pea Grain for Beef Cattle
,
2007
.
[4]
J. Caton,et al.
Effect of field pea level on intake, digestion, microbial efficiency, ruminal fermentation, and in situ disappearance in beef steers fed growing diets.
,
2004,
Journal of animal science.
[5]
E. Loe,et al.
Field pea (Pisum sativum) inclusion in corn-based lamb finishing diets
,
2004
.
[6]
J. Caton,et al.
Effect of field pea replacement level on intake and digestion in beef steers fed by-product-based medium-concentrate diets.
,
2004,
Journal of animal science.
[7]
E. Okine,et al.
Feeding value of peas for backgrounding beef heifers
,
2003
.
[8]
G. Erickson,et al.
Effects of Field Pea Level and Processing in Finishing Diets
,
2006
.
[9]
G. Erickson,et al.
Effects of Field Peas in Beef Finishing Diets
,
2005
.
[10]
B. Rops,et al.
Field Peas in Finishing Cattle Diets and the Effect of Processing
,
2000
.