Some abstracts do not have video files because ASAS was denied recording rights.

1412
Evaluating the feeding value of field peas for growing and finishing cattle

Wednesday, July 20, 2016: 4:15 PM
155 E (Salt Palace Convention Center)
Hannah L Greenwell , University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE
Karla H Jenkins , University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE
J. C. MacDonald , University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE
Abstract Text:

A two year experiment was conducted to determine the effects of field pea (FP) supplementation during grazing and finishing phases on animal performance and carcass characteristics. In year one, 110 steers (initial BW = 348 kg; SD = 22 kg) and in year two, 113 heifers (initial BW = 249 kg; SD = 11 kg) were arranged in a 3 × 2 factorial. The first factor was supplementation during grazing, consisting of three treatments: 1) FP; 2) mixture of dry rolled corn (70.8%), solubles (24%), and urea (5.2%); (DRC); (mixture was used to ensure RDP was not limiting); 3) control group receiving no supplement (CON). The second factor was finishing treatment, cattle were fed a DRC-based finishing diet with or without 20% FP (DM basis). Cattle grazed crested wheatgrass pastures and were supplemented at a rate of 0.5% BW (DM basis). During the growing phase ending BW and ADG (P < 0.01) were greatest for calves supplemented DRC (413 ± 11 kg, 0.89 ± 0.05 kg, respectively) followed by FP (399 ± 11 kg, 0.78 ± 0.05 kg, respectively) and the CON treatment (379 ± 11 kg, 0.62 ± 0.05 kg, respectively). In the finishing phase there was an interaction between growing and finishing treatments for G:F (P = 0.03), a result of cattle supplemented with FP during the growing phase and with no FP in the finisher performing better than cattle supplemented with FP during growing and with FP also included in their finishing diet (0.142 ± 0.004 kg vs. 0.132 ± 0.004 kg, respectively). There were no other interactions of finishing and growing treatments on other variables (P ≥ 0.10). Feedlot ADG was affected by growing treatment (P < 0.01), where cattle in the CON treatment had greater ADG (1.95 ± 0.04 kg) than cattle that were supplemented DRC (1.80 ± 0.04 kg) and FP (1.78 ± 0.04 kg), which were not different. Final BW and HCW tended (P= 0.07) to be affected by growing treatment in a similar manner to feedlot ADG. Inclusion of FP in the finishing diet had no impact on carcass characteristics. In conclusion, cattle supplemented DRC during grazing had greater ADG than cattle supplemented FP or CON. However, in the finishing phase CON cattle compensated in feedlot ADG. Inclusion of FP in grower supplement or finishing diets may be advantageous if appropriately priced.

Keywords: cattle, field peas, finishing, grazing