11
Composition of Selected Feeds

Table 11–1 contains nutrient composition data for commonly used beef cattle feeds from, primarily, nine commercial laboratories in the United States and Canada. Data were also extracted from the 1989 Nutrient Requirements of Horses (National Research Council, 1989). Wet-chemistry techniques were used to determine nutrient concentrations. International feed numbers have been included; however, they have not been included for data sets from the commercial laboratories that combine feeds with more than one international feed number. For example, most laboratories only described the feed as, for example, “alfalfa hay” without giving the maturity.

Feeds in Appendix Table 1A that have the same International Feed Number as feeds in Table 11–1 were made to match those in Table 11–1 as nearly as possible. The majority of the nutrient analyses given in Table 11–1 were conducted after 1988 and thus reflect the values obtained with recent production and manufacturing processes, and analytical techniques. The table shows the feed name, mean concentration of nutrients, number of samples analyzed, and standard deviation (SD). Because crop varieties, weather, soil fertility and type, processing method, storage conditions, and sampling technique all influence nutrient concentrations, an average value without an estimate of the normal variation is of limited value. An estimate of the variation associated with the nutrient concentration of a given feed can also be used in stoichastic programming to reduce ration costs (D’Alfonso et al., 1992).

Data from this table is intended to help producers evaluate whether data they receive on their own feedstuffs are within normal ranges. In comparing table values with an individual sample, keep in mind that the larger the number of samples analyzed, the more reliable the table value. The SD is an estimate of the variation existing among samples of the same feed. For example, 5,883 samples of alfalfa hay had a mean protein concentration of 18.61 percent and an SD of 2.84. This means that 66.6 percent of the alfalfa samples analyzed had a crude protein concentration between 15.77 and 21.45 percent (mean±1 SD) and 95 percent of the samples were between 12.93 and 24.29 percent (mean±2 SD). Nutrient concentration varies for many feedstuffs, but if the SD value for an individual sample is greater than 2 SD from the mean, verification of that value is recommended.

Estimates of the ruminal undegradability of crude protein are included in Table 11–1. The mean values given in the table are probably lower than what would be observed with cattle allowed to consume feed ad libitum, because the experimental techniques used in measuring protein degradability often require restricted intakes. Although the use of undegradable protein in diet formulation is not an exact science, ignoring the differences in degradability among feedstuffs is no longer practical, and many factors affect the amount of dietary protein escaping ruminal degradation (National Research Council, 1985). In addition, monensin slows protein degradation (Poos et al., 1979; Isichei and Bergen, 1980; Whetsone et al., 1981), however, monensin also inhibits bacterial protein synthesis (Poos et al., 1979; Chalupa, 1980), so total protein supply to the intestine may not be increased. Also proteins such as soybean meal with an isoelectric point within the range of the normal rumen pH (5.5 to 7.0) may have higher undegradabilities when included in high concentrate diets that decrease rumen pH (Loerch et al., 1983; Zinn and Owens, 1983). Consequently, the subcommittee recommends increasing the undegradability value of the more degradable protein sources by 1 SD when used in higher energy diets with access ad libitum.

EFFECTS OF PROCESSING TREATMENT

Many treatments are used to improve the nutritive value of feedstuffs for beef cattle. The treatments as such are



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 133
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition, 1996 11 Composition of Selected Feeds Table 11–1 contains nutrient composition data for commonly used beef cattle feeds from, primarily, nine commercial laboratories in the United States and Canada. Data were also extracted from the 1989 Nutrient Requirements of Horses (National Research Council, 1989). Wet-chemistry techniques were used to determine nutrient concentrations. International feed numbers have been included; however, they have not been included for data sets from the commercial laboratories that combine feeds with more than one international feed number. For example, most laboratories only described the feed as, for example, “alfalfa hay” without giving the maturity. Feeds in Appendix Table 1A that have the same International Feed Number as feeds in Table 11–1 were made to match those in Table 11–1 as nearly as possible. The majority of the nutrient analyses given in Table 11–1 were conducted after 1988 and thus reflect the values obtained with recent production and manufacturing processes, and analytical techniques. The table shows the feed name, mean concentration of nutrients, number of samples analyzed, and standard deviation (SD). Because crop varieties, weather, soil fertility and type, processing method, storage conditions, and sampling technique all influence nutrient concentrations, an average value without an estimate of the normal variation is of limited value. An estimate of the variation associated with the nutrient concentration of a given feed can also be used in stoichastic programming to reduce ration costs (D’Alfonso et al., 1992). Data from this table is intended to help producers evaluate whether data they receive on their own feedstuffs are within normal ranges. In comparing table values with an individual sample, keep in mind that the larger the number of samples analyzed, the more reliable the table value. The SD is an estimate of the variation existing among samples of the same feed. For example, 5,883 samples of alfalfa hay had a mean protein concentration of 18.61 percent and an SD of 2.84. This means that 66.6 percent of the alfalfa samples analyzed had a crude protein concentration between 15.77 and 21.45 percent (mean±1 SD) and 95 percent of the samples were between 12.93 and 24.29 percent (mean±2 SD). Nutrient concentration varies for many feedstuffs, but if the SD value for an individual sample is greater than 2 SD from the mean, verification of that value is recommended. Estimates of the ruminal undegradability of crude protein are included in Table 11–1. The mean values given in the table are probably lower than what would be observed with cattle allowed to consume feed ad libitum, because the experimental techniques used in measuring protein degradability often require restricted intakes. Although the use of undegradable protein in diet formulation is not an exact science, ignoring the differences in degradability among feedstuffs is no longer practical, and many factors affect the amount of dietary protein escaping ruminal degradation (National Research Council, 1985). In addition, monensin slows protein degradation (Poos et al., 1979; Isichei and Bergen, 1980; Whetsone et al., 1981), however, monensin also inhibits bacterial protein synthesis (Poos et al., 1979; Chalupa, 1980), so total protein supply to the intestine may not be increased. Also proteins such as soybean meal with an isoelectric point within the range of the normal rumen pH (5.5 to 7.0) may have higher undegradabilities when included in high concentrate diets that decrease rumen pH (Loerch et al., 1983; Zinn and Owens, 1983). Consequently, the subcommittee recommends increasing the undegradability value of the more degradable protein sources by 1 SD when used in higher energy diets with access ad libitum. EFFECTS OF PROCESSING TREATMENT Many treatments are used to improve the nutritive value of feedstuffs for beef cattle. The treatments as such are

OCR for page 133
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition, 1996 TABLE 11–1 Means and Standard Deviations for the Composition Data of Feeds Commonly Used in Beef Cattle Diets Entry No. Feed Name/Description International Feed No. Value as Determined at Maintenance Intake Net Energy Values for Growing-Cattle Mcal/kg Dry Matter (%) Crude Protein (%) Ruminal Undegradability (%) Ether Extract (%) Fiber (%) NDF (%) ADF (%) TDN (%) DE (Mcal/kg) ME (Mcal/kg) NEm NEg   ALFALFA (Medicago sativa) 01 Fresh   62 2.73 2.24 1.38 0.80 23.40 18.90 22 3.15 26.50 47.10 36.80 N — — — — — 22 3146 — 9 10 2092 3126 SD — — — — — 3.66 3.00 — 0.65 2.28 7.02 5.11 02 Fresh, late vegetative 2–00–181 66 2.91 2.39 1.51 0.92 23.20 22.20 22 2.90 24.20 30.90 24.00 N — — — — — 14 17 — 4 14 12 6 SD — — — — — 3.39 2.00 — 0.95 2.29 4.79 3.66 03 Fresh, full bloom 2–00–188 50 2.22 1.81 0.97 0.42 23.80 19.3 22 2.6 30.4 38.6 35.9 N — — — — — 8 8 — 2 2 12 2 SD — — — — — 3.88 3.70 — 0.57 1.83 6.14 2.82 04 Hay   60 2.65 2.17 1.31 0.74 90.60 18.6 28 2.39 26.1 43.9 33.8 N — — — — — 5,895 5883 12 169 122 4675 5764 SD — — — — — 1.76 2.84 7 1.16 4.54 6.44 4.67 05 Hay, sun-cured, early bloom 1–00–059 60 2.65 2.17 1.31 0.74 90.50 19.90 22 2.9 28.5 39.3 31.9 N — — — — — 43 63.00 — 28 29 14 15 SD — — — — — 1.92 2.25 — 1.35 3.98 3.58 2.40 06 Hay, sun-cured, mid-bloom 1–00–063 58 2.56 2.10 1.24 0.68 91.00 18.70 — 2.6 28.0 47.1 36.7 N — — — — — 60 56.00 — 23 22 22 26 SD — — — — — 1.88 2.93 — 1.82 4.25 6.53 2.58 07 Hay, sun-cured, full bloom 1–00–068 55 2.43 1.99 1.14 0.58 90.90 17.0 22 3.4 30.1 48.8 38.7 N — — — — — 210 20.00 — 12 14 10 9 SD — — — — — 2.06 2.50 — 1.73 4.27 3.49 2.42 08 Meal   62 2.73 2.24 1.38 0.80 91.70 18.9 59 2.70 26.5 42.0 33.2 N — — — — — 145 97.00 10 60 73 11 26 SD — — — — — 1.93 2.01 17 0.48 2.48 7.7 4.7 09 Meal, dehydrated, 15% protein 1–00–022 59 2.60 2.13 1.27 0.70 90.40 17.30 59 2.4 29.0 55.4 37.5 N — — — — — 23 21 — 13 18 1 2 SD — — — — — 2.18 1.75 — 0.44 3.17 — 1.47 10 Meal, dehydrated, 17% protein 1–00–023 61 2.69 2.21 1.34 0.77 91.80 18.90 59 3.00 26.2 45.0 34.3 N — — — — — 72 50 — 37 46 1 2 SD — — — — — 1.50 0.68 — 0.49 2.25 — 0.95 11 Silage 3–00–216 63 2.78 2.28 1.41 0.83 44.10 19.5 23 3.70 25.4 47.5 37.5 N — — — — — 8289 8315 6 84 38 6842 8295 SD — — — — — 11.6 2.93 8 0.92 2.9 6.6 4.9   BARLEY (Hordeum vulgare) 12 Grain 4–00–549 88 3.84 3.03 2.06 1.40 88.1 13.20 27 2.2 3.37 18.1 5.77 N — — — — — 1743 1884 16 8 6 1216 1399 SD — — — — — 0.86 1.50 10 0.44 1.6 4.8 2.2 13 Silage   60 2.65 2.17 1.31 0.74 37.10 11.90 23 2.92 — 56.8 33.9 N — — — — — 188 186 — 5 — 44 185 SD — — — — — 9.30 2.70 — 0.61 — 5.7 4.2 14 Straw 1–00–498 40 1.76 1.45 0.60 0.08 91.20 4.40 25 1.90 41.5 72.5 48.8 N — — — — — 29 35 — 7 26 2 3 SD — — — — — 3.31 0.91 — 0.27 4.03 1.83 4.65   BEET SUGAR (Beta vulgaris altissima) 15 Pulp, dehydrated 4–00–669 74 3.26 2.68 1.76 1.14 91.00 9.8 45 0.6 20.0 44.6 27.5 N — — — — — 47 31 4 25 29 2 5 SD — — — — — 1.37 1.04 14 0.15 2.40 20.4 6.79   BERMUDAGRASS, COASTAL (Cynodon dactylon) 16 Fresh 2–00–719 64 2.82 2.31 1.44 0.86 30.30 12.6 20 3.7 28.4 73.3 36.8 N — — — — — 15 48 — 10 11 41 41 SD — — — — — 6.91 2.88 — 0.95 1.77 5.10 4.64 17 Hay, sun-cured, 43–56 days growth 1–09–210 49 2.16 1.77 0.93 0.39 93.0 7.8 23 2.7 32.6 — — N — — — — — 1 4 — 2 2 3 3 SD — — — — — — 1.19 — 1.83 4.73 2.45 4.18   BLUEGRASS, KENTUCKY (Poa pratensis) 18 Fresh, early vegetative 2–00–777 72 3.17 2.60 1.70 1.08 30.80 17.4 20 3.5 25.2 55 29 N — — — — — 4 2 — 2 2 1 1 SD — — — — — 0.69 0.14 — 0.07 0.21 — —   BLOOD 19 Meal 5–00–380 66 2.91 2.49 1.51 0.92 90.50 93.8 75 1.69 1.35 41.6 2.81 N — — — — — 52 40 7 19 2 28 37 SD — — — — — 5.9 12.1 12 3.4 14 20.2 2.60

OCR for page 133
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition, 1996 Ash (%) Calcium (%) Phosphorus (%) Magnesium (%) Potassium (%) Sodium (%) Sulfur (%) Copper (mg/kg) Iodine (mg/kg) Iron (mg/kg) Manganese (mg/kg) Selenium (mg/kg) Zinc (mg/kg) Cobalt (mg/kg) Molybdenum (mg/kg) 10.50 1.29 0.26 0.26 2.78 0.01 0.27 4.47 — 191 26.3 — 15.2 0.44 0.94 41 3079 3079 3079 3079 2750 401 2748 — 2749 2750 — 2748 6 2742 0.75 0.30 0.08 0.08 0.59 0.03 0.05 4.82 — 350 29.60 — 29.7 0.05 1.00 10.20 1.71 0.30 0.36 2.27 0.21 0.36 10.7 — 111 41 — — 0.17 — 10 10 10 10 10 2 9 1 — 1 2 — — 1 — 0.83 0.48 0.04 0.10 0.50 0.01 0.09 — — — 18 — — — — 10.9 1.19 0.26 0.40 3.62 0.16 0.31 14.9 — 293 41 — 32 — 0.49 8 6 6 6 6 6 1 5 — 6 6 — 6 — 5 2.35 0.24 0.04 0.10 0.89 0.07 — 2.33 — 232 35.2 — 16.2 — 0.06 8.57 1.40 0.28 0.28 2.43 0.05 0.28 7.3 — 198 30.3 0.41 18.8 0.65 0.93 378 5771 5769 5319 5324 2813 654 2896 — 2904 2895 158 2904 38 1,354 0.92 0.32 0.05 0.07 0.53 0.06 0.07 6.5 — 319 27 0.31 12 0.34 1.30 9.2 1.63 0.21 0.34 2.56 0.15 0.30 12.7 0.17 227 36 0.55 30 — 0.29 36 98 91 93 96 7 1 93 1 97 95 86 97 — 9 1.61 0.39 0.05 0.10 0.61 0.13 — 3.0 — 137 25.5 0.39 7.6 — 0.24 8.5 1.37 0.22 0.35 1.56 0.12 0.28 17.7 0.16 225 28 — 31 — 0.39 41 9 13 7 8 5 3 3 1 4 4 — 3 — 2 1.48 0.28 0.05 0.11 0.51 0.05 0.03 5.64 — 182 7.7 — 14.1 — 0.05 7.8 1.19 0.24 0.27 1.56 0.07 0.27 9.9 0.13 155 42 — 26 — 0.23 16 6 7 6 7 3 1 6 1 8 6 — 4 — 4 1.07 0.14 0.08 0.11 0.75 0.07 — 4.2 — 28.1 8.6 — 2.8 — 0.28 10.3 1.53 0.27 0.29 2.48 0.09 0.25 11.4 — 396 39.4 0.33 35.8 0.31 3.0 41 53 56 31 34 31 14 25 — 27 27 4 24 5 17 0.75 0.25 0.03 0.04 0.19 0.05 0.02 3.1 — 66 5.0 0.35 9.3 0.04 0.70 9.9 1.38 0.25 0.29 2.46 0.08 0.21 10.4 0.13 309 30.7 0.31 21.4 — 0.19 12 5 5 5 6 4 4 2 1 3 2 2 2 — 1 0.93 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.14 0.01 0.02 1.7 — 54.7 2.5 0.32 1.4 — — 10.6 1.51 0.25 0.32 2.61 0.11 0.24 9.3 0.16 441 34 0.36 21 — 0.33 21 25 28 12 11 10 8 6 1 7 7 2 5 — 3 0.61 0.13 0.02 0.04 0.29 0.05 0.03 1.74 3.74 0.40 7.5 0.04 — — — 9.5 1.32 0.31 0.26 2.85 0.02 0.28 12.1 — 252 32.4 0.18 19.5 0.65 1.27 26 8190 8190 8164 8164 4307 1251 4307 — 4307 4307 7 4307 2 4307 1.4 0.27 0.05 0.06 0.55 0.03 0.08 23.7 — 407 29.2 0.07 24.8 0.15 0.97 2.4 0.05 0.35 0.12 0.57 0.01 0.15 5.3 — 59.5 18.3 — 13.0 0.35 1.16 1153 1395 1906 1409 257 1408 63 1408 — 1408 1408 — 1408 16 196 0.18 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.02 2.8 — 56.3 8.5 — 5.03 0.28 0.55 8.3 0.52 0.29 0.19 2.57 0.12 0.24 7.7 — 375 44.8 0.15 24.5 0.72 1.56 2 187 187 82 82 82 32 82 — 82 82 32 82 6 82 0.32 0.16 0.07 0.05 0.83 0.32 0.07 2.9 — 602 28 0.12 13.7 0.41 0.94 7.5 0.30 0.07 0.23 2.36 0.14 0.17 5.40 — 200. 16 — 7 — 0.07 8 34 40 22 22 5 5 18 — 20 4 17 1 — — 1.40 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.48 0.01 0.01 1.33 — 72.0 0.73 0.58 — — — 5.3 0.68 0.10 0.28 0.22 0.20 0.22 13.8 — 293 37.6 0.12 1.0 — 0.08 22 18 23 21 12 8 9 5 — 13 10 1 3 — 3 1.29 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.07 — 62.8 1.3 — 0.03 — 0.04 8.1 0.49 0.27 0.17 1.70 0.06 — 6.0 — 2.44 — — — — — 34 8 8 1 1 1 — 1 — 1 — — — — — 1.86 0.07 0.03   76.6 38.3 8.0 0.26 0.18 0.13 1.30 0.08 0.21 9 — 290 — — .12 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 1 — — — 1 — 1.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9.4 0.50 0.44 0.18 2.27 0.14 0.17 — — 300 — — — — — 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 — — 1 — — — — —   0.09 0.04   2.62 0.40 0.32 0.04 0.31 0.40 0.80 13.9 — 2281 11.7 — 33.0 — 0.53 15 39 39 39 39 39 27 39 — 39 39 — 39 — 39 2.4 0.74 0.37 0.06 0.22 0.26 0.39 6.4 — 469 6.4 — 13.9 — 1.03

OCR for page 133
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition, 1996 Entry No. Feed Name/Description International Feed No. Value as Determined at Maintenance Intake Net Energy Values for Growing-Cattle Mcal/kg Dry Matter (%) Crude Protein (%) Ruminal Undegradability (%) Ether Extract (%) Fiber (%) NDF (%) ADF (%) TDN (%) DE (Mcal/kg) ME (Mcal/kg) NEm NEg   BREWER’S GRAINS 20 Dehydrated 5–02–141 66 2.39 2.39 1.51 0.91 90.20 29.2 50 10.8 7.8 48.7 31.2 N — — — — — 581 571 10 10 40 133 320 SD — — — — 1.51 3.70 13 3.25 1.47 10.2 4.4 0.34   BROOME, SMOOTH (Bromus inermis) 21 Fresh, early vegetative 2–00–956 74 3.26 2.68 1.76 1.14 26.1 21.3 23 4.0 23.0 47.9 31.0 N — — — — — 8 6 — 3 3 4 5 SD — — — — — 6.39 2.47 — 0.35 0.53 3.63 3.16 22 Hay, sun-cured, mid-bloom 1–05–633 56 2.47 2.03 1.18 0.61 87.6 14.4 23 2.2 31.9 57.7 36.8 N — — — — — 2 4 — 3 3 1 3 SD — — — — — — 3.22 — 0.16 3.21 — 4.58 23 Hay, sun-cured, mature 1–00–944 53 2.34 1.92 1.07 0.52 92.6 6.0 23 2.0 32.2 70.5 44.8 N — — — — — 6 2 — 1 2 1 1 SD — — — — — 0.54 0.28 — — 2.82 — —   CANARY GRASS, REED (Phalaris arundianacea) 24 Fresh 2–01–113 60 2.65 2.17 1.31 0.74 22.8 17.0 19 4.1 24.4 46.4 28.3 N — — — — — 4 3 — 2 2 1 1 SD — — — — — 4.89 3.65 — 0.49 3.39 — — 25 Hay, sun-cured 1–01–104 55 2.43 1.99 1.14 0.58 89.3 10.2 22 3.0 33.9 70.5 36.6 N — — — — — 10 14 — 10 10 6 6 SD — — — — — 2.08 2.06 — 0.64 3.80 1.14 0.78   CANOLA (Brassica dapus) 26 Grain   70 3.09 2.53 1.63 1.03 92.2 30.7 20 7.4 12.5 55.4 22.1 N — — — — — 39 346 — 7 6 66 150 SD — — — — — 1.55 4.32 — 0.71 1.82 10.4 3.89 27 Meal, sun-cured 5–03–871 69 3.04 2.49 1.60 1.0 82.0 40.9 28 3.47 13.3 27.2 17.0 N — — — — — 154 129 10 105 120 24 19 SD — — — — — 1.63 4.32 17 1.13 1.95 4.81 3.36   CITRUS (Citrus spp) 28 Pomace without fines, dehydrated 4–01–237 82 3.62 2.96 2.00 1.35 91.1 6.7 30 3.7 12.8 23.0 23.0 N — — — — — 275 365 — 260 314 1 1 SD — — — — — 1.52 0.40 — 0.86 1.19 — —   CLOVER, LADINO (Trifolium pratense) 29 Fresh, early vegetative 2–01–380 68 3.00 2.46 1.57 0.97 19.3 25.8 20 4.6 13.9 35 33 N — — — — — 4 3 — 3 3 1 1 SD — — — — — 1.44 1.21 — 1.87 0.40 — — 30 Hay, sun-cured 1–01–378 60 2.65 2.17 1.31 0.74 89.1 22.4 22 2.7 20.8 36.0 32.0 N — — — — — 5 4 — 3 3 1 1 SD — — — — — 2.71 1.18 — 0.750 2.90 — —   CLOVER, RED (Trifolium pratense) 31 Fresh, early bloom 2–01–428 69 3.04 2.49 1.6 1.00 19.6 20.8 20 5.0 23.2 40.0 31.0 N — — — — — 5 3 — 2 3 1 1 SD — — — — — 0.46 3.06 — 0.07 4.25 — — 32 Fresh, full bloom 2–01–429 64 2.82 2.31 1.44 0.86 26.2 14.6 22 2.9 26.1 43.0 35.0 N — — — — — 4 3 — 2 2 1 1 SD — — — — — 3.00 0.46 — 1.55 5.02 — — 33 Hay, sun-cured 1–01–415 55 2.43 1.99 1.14 0.58 88.4 15.0 24 2.8 30.7 46.9 36.0 N — — — — — 21 13 — 11 11 2 2 SD — — — — — 1.91 1.91 — 0.32 3.96 12.9 9.19   CORN, DENT YELLOW (Zea mays indentata) 34 Cobs, ground 1–28–234 50 2.21 1.81 0.97 0.42 90.1 2.8 50 0.6 35.4 87.0 39.5 N — — — — — 3 3 — 3 3 2 2 SD — — — — — 0.25 0.28 — 0.148 0.40 2.82 6.36 35 Distiller’s grains with solubles dehydrated 5–28–236 90 3.88 3.18 2.18 1.50 90.3 30.4 52 10.7 6.9 46.0 21.3 N — — — — — 450 439 6 166 76 158 370 SD — — — — — 2.19 3.55 20 3.12 1.33 8.71 4.82 36 Gluten feed 5–28–243 80 3.53 2.89 1.94 1.30 90.0 23.8 22 3.91 7.5 36.2 12.7 N — — — — — 33 57 2 10 6 25 48 SD — — — — — 1.69 3.59 11 1.04 2.41 6.8 2.62 37 Gluten meal 5–28–242 89 3.92 3.22 2.20 1.52 88.2 66.3 59 2.56 5.5 8.9 7.9 N — — — — — 20 29 8 12 1 12 25 SD — — — — — 2.10 2.97 12 0.30 — 2.86 4.1 38 Grain, cracked 4–20–698 90 3.92 3.25 2.24 1.55 90.0 9.8 55 4.06 2.29 10.8 3.3 N — — — — — 3708 3579 14 134 127 2488 3481 SD — — — — — 0.88 1.06 19 0.64 0.90 3.57 1.83 39 Silage, well-eared 3–28–250 72 3.17 2.60 1.69 1.08 34.6 8.65 30 3.09 19.5 46.0 26.6 N — — — — — 32231 32364 4 314 54 27777 32315 SD — — — — — 7.25 1.28 6 0.81 4.44 6.50 4.19

OCR for page 133
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition, 1996 Ash (%) Calcium (%) Phosphorus (%) Magnesium (%) Potassium (%) Sodium (%) Sulfur (%) Copper (mg/kg) Iodine (mg/kg) Iron (mg/kg) Manganese (mg/kg) Selenium (mg/kg) Zinc (mg/kg) Cobalt (mg/kg) Molybdenum (mg/kg) 4.18 0.29 0.70 0.27 0.58 0.15 0.40 11.3 — 221 44 — 82.0 — 3.16 100 267 267 267 267 267 90 267 — 267 267 — 267 — 267 0.18 0.10 0.05 0.18 0.23 0.08 6.4 — 104 12.7 — 13.7 — 0.74 — 10.4 0.55 0.45 0.32 3.16 — 0.20 — — — — — 21 — — 6 2 2 — 1 — 1 — — — — — 1 — — 0.45 0.10 0.18 — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.9 0.29 0.28 0.10 1.99 0.01 — 25.0 — 91 40 — 30 — 0.58 3 1 1 1 1 1 — 1 — 1 1 — 1 — 1 1.75 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.2 0.26 0.22 0.12 1.85 0.01 — 10.4 — 80 73 — 24 — 0.19 2 3 2 3 3 2 — 2 — 2 2 — 1 — 2 1.41 0.15 0.01 0.07 0.80 — — 5.1 — 28.2 45.8 — — — 0.06 10.2 0.36 0.33 — 3.64 — — — — — — — — — — 3 2 2 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — 1.85 0.06 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.1 0.36 0.24 0.22 2.91 0.02 0.14 11.9 — 150 92 — 18 — — 10 12 12 8 8 2 1 1 — 1 1 — 1 — — 0.80 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.47 0.01 — — — — — — — — — 4.0 0.30 0.59 0.21 0.16 0.03 0.42 12.4 — 253 47.7 — 88.3 — 4.2 11 126 126 126 126 126 17 126 — 126 126 — 126 — 126 0.03 0.12 0.09 0.04 0.17 0.10 0.06 5.2 — 370 9.8 — 16.8 — 0.85 7.10 0.70 1.20 0.57 1.37 0.03 1.17 7.95 — 211 55.8 — 71.5 — 1.79 31 102 133 27 38 25 14 14 — 25 27 — 27 — 22 0.38 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.07 0.04 0.94   88 12.6   6.0   0.35 6.6 1.88 0.13 0.17 0.77 0.08 0.08 6.14 — 360 7 — 15 — 0.19 335 20 16 9 14 5 6 6 — 11 8 — 6 — 3 0.80 0.42 0.02 0.02 0.17 0.02 0.04 0.42 — 335 0.7 — 2.6 — 0.10 11.9 1.27 0.35 0.42 2.40 0.12 0.16 — — — — — 20 — — 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 — — — — — 1 — — 1.38 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9.4 1.45 0.33 0.47 2.44 0.13 0.21 9.41 0.30 470 123 — 17 — 0.16 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 — 1 — 1 0.16 0.22 0.06 0.07 0.27 — 0.01 1.2 — 211 60.9 — — — — 10.2 2.26 0.38 0.51 2.49 0.20 0.17 9.0 0.25 300 50 — 19 — 0.16 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 1 — 1 0.567 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.8 1.01 0.27 0.51 1.96 0.20 0.17 10.0 0.25 300 47 — 16 — 0.12 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 1 — 1 0.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.5 1.38 0.24 0.38 1.81 0.18 0.16 11.0 0.25 238 108 — 17 — 0.16 9 11 11 7 11 2 2 4 1 8 4 — 3 — 1 0.88 0.22 0.06 0.13 0.58 0.04 0.01 12.6 — 121 46.5 — 17.1 — — 1.8 0.12 0.04 0.07 0.89 0.08 0.47 7.00 — 230 6 0.08 5 — 0.13 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 — 1 1 1 1 — 1 — 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 0.01 — — — — — — — — 4.60 0.26 0.83 0.33 1.08 0.30 0.44 10.6 — 358 27.6 — 67.8 — 1.80 18 384 384 383 383 382 113 383 — 383 383 — 383 — 291 0.86 0.23 0.15 0.08 0.27 0.26 0.12 7.81 — 858 11.7 — 23.9 — 0.45 6.9 0.07 0.95 0.40 1.40 0.26 0.47 6.98 — 226 22.1 — 73.3 — 1.80 8 61 61 61 61 61 20 61 — 61 61 — 61 — 49 1.74 0.05 0.29 0.10 0.34 0.20 0.09 2.55 — 127 7.28 — 19.4 — 0.49 2.86 0.07 0.61 0.15 0.48 0.06 0.90 4.76 — 159 20.6 — 61.4 — 0.93 7 33 33 33 33 33 8 33 — 33 33 — 33 — 33 0.52 0.09 0.29 0.16 0.06 0.13 0.16 6.5 — 86.9 38.1 — 86.6 — 0.63 1.46 0.03 0.32 0.12 0.44 0.01 0.11 2.51 — 54.5 7.89 0.14 24.2 — 0.60 87 3516 3515 3437 3437 1749 382 1743 — 1738 1741 17 1743 — 1691 0.33 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.02 1.98 — 43.2 7.1 0.12 11.1 — 0.31 3.59 0.25 0.22 0.18 1.14 0.01 0.12 4.18 — 131 23.5 — 17.7 — 0.53 56 32195 32195 32125 32127 13313 3335 13316 — 13323 13316 — 13323 — 10815 0.78 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.26 0.03 0.03 5.14 — 340 25.1 — 16.1 — 0.58

OCR for page 133
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition, 1996 Entry No. Feed Name/Description International Feed No. Value as Determined at Maintenance Intake Net Energy Values for Growing-Cattle Mcal/kg Dry Matter (%) Crude Protein (%) Ruminal Undegradability (%) Ether Extract (%) Fiber (%) NDF (%) ADF (%) TDN (%) DE (Mcal/kg) ME (Mcal/kg) NEm NEg   COTTON (Gossypium spp.) 40 Hulls 1–01–599 42 1.85 1.52 0.68 0.15 90.4 4.2 50 1.7 47.8 88.3 65.3 N — — — — — 22 28 — 26 27 2 4 SD — — — — — 1.34 0.74 — 1.19 3.07 2.41 4.31 41 Seed 5–01–614 90 3.97 3.25 2.24 1.55 89.4 24.4 27 17.5 25.6 51.6 41.8 N — — — — — 241 476 — 167 62 260 418 SD — — — — — 2.51 3.16 — 2.99 3.91 6.04 4.78 42 Seed, meal solv-extd 5–07–873 75 3.31 2.71 1.79 1.16 90.2 46.1 43 3.15 13.2 28.9 17.9 N — — — — — 138 117 21 91 53 25 35 SD — — — — — 1.57 3.17 11 1.72 1.64 7.05 3.27   FATS 43 Fat, animal, hydrolyzed 4–00–376 177 7.30 7.30 6.00 4.50 99.2 — — 99.2 — — — N — — — — — 5 — — 3 — — — SD — — — — — 0.28 — — 1.04 — — — 44 Oil, vegetable 4–05–077 177 7.80 6.40 4.75 3.51 99.8 — — 99.9 — — — N — — — — — 5 — — 6 — — — SD — — — — — 0.29 — — 0.11 — — —   FEATHERMEAL 45 Poultry 5–03–795 68 3.00 2.46 1.57 0.97 93.3 85.8 76 7.21 0.9 54.9 18.3 N — — — — — 19 20 2 9 1 11 20 SD — — — — — 2.16 7.41 6 2.28 — 7.56 9.29   FESCUE, KENTUCKY 31 (Festuca arundinacea) 46 Fresh 2–01–902 61 2.69 2.21 1.34 0.77 31.3 15.0 2.0 5.5 24.6 62.2 34.4 N — — — — — 5 51 — 18 18 8 8 SD — — — — — 3.76 2.02 — 0.75 2.39 8.36 4.39 47 Hay, sun-cured, mature 1–09–189 44 1.94 1.59 0.75 0.22 90.0 10.8 25 4.7 31.2 70.0 39.0 N — — — — — 1 13 — 13 10 1 1 SD — — — — — — 3.58 — 0.84 2.36 — —   FISH, ANCHOVY (Engraulis ringen) 48 Meal, mechanical extracted 5–01–985 79 3.48 2.86 1.91 1.27 92.0 71.2 60 4.6 1.1 — — N — — — — — 67 58 26 36 9 — — SD — — — — — 1.19 2.24 16 1.62 0.01 — —   FISH, MENHADEN (Brevoortia tyrannus) 49 Meal, mechanical extracted 5–02–009 73 3.22 2.64 1.73 1.11 91.7 67.9 60 10.7 0.8 — — N — — — — — 79 91 26 96 38 — — SD — — — — — 1.18 2.65 16 1.84 0.20 — —   MEAT 50 Meal, rendered 5–00–385 71 3.13 2.57 1.66 1.05 93.8 58.2 56 11.0 2.01 48.2 6.35 N — — — — — 65 53 7 20 9 22 43 SD — — — — — 4.38 7.94 21 2.15 0.92 11.8 3.39   MOLASSES AND SYRUP 51 Beet sugar molasses, >48% invert sugar, >79.5 degrees brix 4–00–668 75 3.31 2.71 1.79 1.16 77.9 8.5 20 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 N — — — — — 21 12 — 3 — — — SD — — — — — 1.71 1.11 — 0.105 — — — 52 Sugarcane, molasses, >46% invert sugar, >79.5 degrees brix (black-strap) 4–04–696 72 3.17 2.60 1.70 1.08 74.3 5.8 20 0.2 0.5 — 0.4 N — — — — — 84 64 — 6 1 — 1 SD — — — — — 3.27 2.03 — 0.240 — — —   OATS (Avena sativa) 53 Grain 4–03–309 77 3.40 2.78 1.85 1.22 89.2 13.6 17 5.2 12.0 29.3 14.0 N — — — — — 97 229 4 125 108 54 111 SD — — — — — 1.80 1.59 3 0.97 1.40 7.03 4.45 54 Hay, sun-cured 1–03–280 53 2.34 1.91 1.08 0.52 90.7 9.5 20 2.4 32.0 63.0 38.4 N — — — — — 27 32 — 13 17 1 1 SD — — — — — 2.55 2.26 — 0.88 3.57 — — 55 Hulls 1–03–281 35 1.54 1.27 0.41 0.00 92.4 4.1 25 1.5 33.2 72.2 39.6 N — — — — — 26 17 — 15 15 4 4 SD — — — — — 1.14 1.33 — 0.81 3.44 5.72 2.06 56 Silage 3–03–296 59 2.6 2.13 1.27 0.70 36.4 12.7 23 3.12 31.8 58.1 38.6 N — — — — — 635 639 — 5 2 143 631 SD — — — — — 10.8 3.04 — 0.32 4.62 6.71 4.55 57 Straw 1–03–283 50 2.21 1.81 0.97 0.42 92.2 4.4 30 2.2 40.4 74.4 47.9 N — — — — — 71 74 — 16 64 4 5 SD — — — — — 2.10 1.09 — 0.42 2.98 2.70 2.48

OCR for page 133
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition, 1996 Ash (%) Calcium (%) Phosphorus (%) Magnesium (%) Potassium (%) Sodium (%) Sulfur (%) Copper (mg/kg) Iodine (mg/kg) Iron (mg/kg) Manganese (mg/kg) Selenium (mg/kg) Zinc (mg/kg) Cobalt (mg/kg) Molybdenum (mg/kg) 2.9 0.15 0.09 0.14 0.88 0.02 0.08 13.3 — 131 119 0.09 22 — 0.02 20 16 16 10 11 7 6 4 — 5 3 1 3 — 3 0.48 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.06 4.0 — 49.7 2.2 — 0.1 — 0.01 4.16 0.17 0.62 0.384 1.24 0.01 0.27 7.9 — 107 131 — 37.7 — 1.16 16 383 383 383 383 383 121 383 — 383 383 — 383 — 374 0.29 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.05 2.7 — 190 210 — 8.1 — 0.50 7.0 0.20 1.16 0.65 1.65 0.07 0.42 16.5 — 162 26.9 — 73.5 — 25.0 34 164 167 47 167 79 21 41 — 42 43 — 37 — 33 0.47 0.13 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.12 2.8 — 71 13.2 — 15.3 — 0.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.50 1.19 0.68 0.06 0.20 0.24 1.85 14.2 — 702 12.0 — 105 — 0.56 5 18 18 18 18 18 15 18 — 18 18 — 18 — 18 0.40 1.69 0.84 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.45 5.24 — 422 45 — 9.0   0.29 7.2 0.51 0.37 0.27 2.30 — 0.18 — — — — — 22 — — 2 25 27 24 24 — 24 — — — — — 1 — — 3.60 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.48 — 0.03 — — — — — — — — 6.8 0.41 0.30 0.16 1.96 0.02 — 22.0 — 132 97 — 35 — — 13 2 2 2 2 1 — 2 — 2 2 — 2 — — 0.92 0.13 0.07 0.02 0.19 — — 12.7 — 9.2 22.6 — 1.4 — — 16.0 4.06 2.69 0.27 0.79 0.96 0.78 9.9 3.41 234 12 1.47 114 — 0.19 47 51 52 32 35 32 4 27 2 28 31 27 31 — 1 1.54 0.54 0.45 0.05 0.27 0.33 0.23 1.80 3.49 63.2 5.9 0.25 16.7 — — 20.6 5.46 3.14 0.16 0.77 0.44 0.58 11.3 1.19 594 40 2.34 157 — 0.17 87 68 67 19 21 22 4 20 2 21 21 16 18 — 2 2.12 0.800 0.31 0.03 0.16 0.13 0.26 3.5 1.41 271 17.7 0.69 19.0 — 0.07 21.3 9.13 4.34 0.27 0.49 0.80 0.51 21.4 — 758 174 — 265 — 2.3 7 52 52 52 52 52 25 52 — 52 52 — 52 — 52 5.67 2.75 1.21 0.30 0.16 0.33 0.14 68.3 — 609 990 — 995 — 1.8 11.4 0.15 0.03 0.29 6.06 1.48 0.60 21.6 — 87 6 — 18 — 0.46 9 13 11 10 10 8 9 7 — 8 7 1 5 — — 1.34 0.054 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.08 0.05 1.3 — 25.2 0.3 — 0.032 — — 13.3 1.00 0.10 0.42 4.01 0.22 0.47 65.7 2.10 263 59 — 21 — 1.59 52 32 31 12 16 9 9 8 1 11 11 — 5 — 4 2.34 0.182 0.02 0.10 0.88 0.02 0.02 26.0 — 34.4 6.4 — 6.0 — 0.75 3.3 0.01 0.41 0.16 0.51 0.02 0.21 8.6 — 94.1 40.3 0.24 40.8 0.06 1.70 94 168 175 152 151 49 22 131 — 132 141 32 144 8 104 0.50 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.02 4.1 — 50.0 15.1 0.15 9.5 0.02 0.76 7.9 0.32 0.25 0.29 1.49 0.18 0.23 4.8 — 406 99 — 45 — 0.07 11 7 26 23 11 16 3 4 — 5 4 — 1 — 3 0.85 0.09 0.06 0.27 0.65 0.06 0.06 1.5 — 160 48.2 — — — 0.01 6.6 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.59 0.07 0.10 7.1 — 138 27 0.43 29 — — 12 9 9 6 8 6 2 4 — 3 5 1 3 — — 0.69 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.06 3.2 — 48.4 9.68 — 8.0 — — 10.1 0.58 0.31 0.21 2.88 0.09 0.24 8.0 — 367 66.3 0.07 29.8 — 1.89 2 627 627 562 562 562 67 562 — 562 562 19 562 — 469 1.20 0.21 0.07 0.06 0.85 0.13 0.06 4.5 — 388 33.5 0.06 8.9 — 0.94 7.8 0.23 0.06 0.17 2.53 0.42 0.22 10.3 — 164 31 — 6 — — 14 68 66 18 16 5 6 4 — 15 5 — 11 — — 1.85 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.25 0.07 0.01 0.54 — 47.1 11.8 — 1.1 — —

OCR for page 133
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition, 1996 Entry No. Feed Name/Description International Feed No. Value as Determined at Maintenance Intake Net Energy Values for Growing-Cattle Mcal/kg Dry Matter (%) Crude Protein (%) Ruminal Undegradability (%) Ether Extract (%) Fiber (%) NDF (%) ADF (%) TDN (%) DE (Mcal/kg) ME (Mcal/kg) NEm NEg   ORCHARD GRASS (Dactylis glomerata) 58 Fresh, early bloom 2–03–442 68 3.00 2.46 1.57 0.97 23.5 12.8 20 3.70 32.00 58.1 30.70 N — — — — — 8 7 — 5 5 3 2 SD — — — — — 3.87 2.37 — 0.80 2.93 8.31 1.98 59 Fresh, mid-bloom 2–03–443 57 2.51 2.06 1.21 0.64 27.4 10.1 22 3.5 33.5 57.6 35.6 N — — — — — 3 4 — 2 2 1 1 SD — — — — — 5.36 3.89 — 0.36 2.25 — — 60 Hay, sun-cured, early bloom 1–03–425 65 2.87 2.35 1.47 0.88 89.1 12.8 24 2.9 33.9 59.6 33.8 N — — — — — 7 9 — 6 5 4 4 SD — — — — — 3.30 3.51 — 0.82 1.72 5.28 1.25 61 Hay, sun-cured, late bloom 1–03–428 54 2.38 1.95 1.11 0.55 90.6 8.4 24 3.4 37.1 65.0 37.8 N — — — — — 7 1 — 1 1 3 3 SD — — — — — 1.51 — — — — 2.77 0.20   PEANUT (Arachis hypogaea) 62 Seeds without coats, meal solvent extracted 5–03–650 77 3.40 2.78 1.85 1.22 92.4 52.9 30 2.30 8.40 — — N — — — — — 16 12 2 10 10 — — SD — — — — — 1.82 3.93 0.06 1.00 1.19 — —   PRAIRIE PLANTS, MIDWEST 63 Hay, sun-cured 1–03–191 51 2.25 1.84 1.00 0.45 91.0 6.4 25 2.3 33.7 62.3 41.7 N — — — — — 8 5 — 5 5 1 1 SD — — — — — 1.42 1.63 — 0.65 1.94 — —   RICE (Oryza sativa) 64 Bran with germs 4–03–928 70 3.09 2.53 1.63 1.03 90.5 14.4 25 15.0 12.9 33.00 20.0 N — — — — — 37 34 — 29 25 8 1 SD — — — — — 0.74 1.42 — 2.14 1.46 6.57 — 65 Hulls 1–08–075 12 0.53 0.43 0.00 0.00 91.9 3.1 35 1.1 42.7 82.40 68.7 N — — — — — 21 22 — 18 18 3 2 SD — — — — — 1.45 1.10 — 1.07 3.59 4.95 1.54   RYE GRASS, ITALIAN (Lolium multiforum) 66 Fresh 2–04–073 84 3.70 3.04 2.06 1.40 22.6 17.9 20 4.1 20.9 61.00 38.0 N — — — — — 5 2 — 2 2 1 1 SD — — — — — 2.35 2.26 — 0.141 1.27 — —   SORGHUM (Sorghum bicolor) 67 Grain 4–04–383 82 3.62 2.96 2.00 1.35 90.0 12.6 57 3.03 2.76 16.10 6.38 N — — — — — 226 230 8 68 45 7 10 SD — — — — — 2.29 1.99 8 0.66 0.95 3.36 0.56 68 Silage 3–04–323 60 2.65 2.17 1.31 0.74 30 9.39 29 2.64 26.90 60.80 38.8 N — — — — — 588 584 — 32 16 282 581 SD — — — — — 13.5 2.83 — 0.34 3.74 7.59 5.65   SOYBEAN (Glycine max) 69 Seed coats 1–04–560 77 3.40 2.98 1.86 1.22 90.3 12.2 25 2.10 39.9 66.3 49.0 N — — — — — 28 27 — 17 23 6 6 SD — — — — — 3.43 2.51 — 0.56 4.79 2.03 2.85 70 Meal — 84 3.7 3.04 2.06 1.4 90.9 51.8 34 1.67 5.37 10.3 7.0 N — — — — — 807 786 45 204 192 150 283 SD — — — — — 1.88 3.45 12 0.97 0.90 5.80 3.33 71 Seeds, meal solvent extracted, 44% protein 5–20–637 84 3.70 3.04 2.06 1.40 89.1 49.90 34 1.6 7.0 14.9 10.0 N — — — — — 119 111 — 87 92 2 3 SD — — — — — 1.22 1.25 — 0.67 0.95 1.27 0.057 72 Seeds without hulls, meal solvent extd 5–04–612 87 3.84 3.15 2.15 1.48 89.9 54.00 34 1.1 3.8 7.79 6.10 N — — — — — 78 75 — 41 55 1 3 SD — — — — — 1.72 1.72 — 0.38 0.55 — 0.75 73 Seed whole 5–04–610 94 4.14 3.40 2.35 1.64 86.4 40.3 25 18.2 10.1 14.9 11.1 N — — — — — 5 241 — 50 35 55 179 SD — — — — — 2.07 3.84 — 2.64 4.32 6.22 5.71   SUNFLOWER, COMMON (Helianthus annuus) 74 Seeds without hulls, meal solvent extd 5–04–739 65 2.87 2.35 1.47 0.88 92.5 26 26 2.9 12.7 40.0 30.0 N — — — — — 21 22 9 19 20 1 1 SD — — — — — 1.73 3.96 5 0.63 2.18 — —   TIMOTHY (Phleum pratense) 75 Fresh, late vegetative 2–04–903 66 2.91 2.39 1.51 0.91 26.7 12.2 20 3.8 32.1 55.7 29.0 N — — — — — 5 8 — 2 2 6 1 SD — — — — — 1.86 3.87 — 0.25 1.93 3.65   76 Hay, sun-cured, early bloom 1–04–882 59 2.6 2.13 1.28 0.71 89.1 10.8 22 2.8 33.6 61.4 35.2 N — — — — — 13 12 — 10 8 5 5 SD — — — — — 1.72 3.35 — 0.54 1.36 1.22 2.38

OCR for page 133
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition, 1996 Ash (%) Calcium (%) Phosphorus (%) Magnesium (%) Potassium (%) Sodium (%) Sulfur (%) Copper (mg/kg) Iodine (mg/kg) Iron (mg/kg) Manganese (mg/kg) Selenium (mg/kg) Zinc (mg/kg) Cobalt (mg/kg) Molybdenum (mg/kg) 8.1 0.25 0.39 0.31 3.38 0.04 0.26 33.1 — 785 104 — — — — 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 2 1 — — — — 1.68 — — — — — — — — 21.2 — — — — — 7.5 0.23 0.17 0.33 2.09 0.26 — 50.1 — 68 136 — 25 — 0.10 4 1 2 1 1 1 — 1 — 1 1 — 1 — 1 0.53 — 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.5 0.27 0.34 0.11 2.91 0.01 0.26 19.0 — 93 157 — 40 — 0.43 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 1 1 — 1 — 1 1.60 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.1 0.26 0.30 0.11 2.67 0.01 — 20.0 20.0 84 167 0.03 38 — 0.30 3 1 1 1 1 1 — 1 — 1 1 1 1 — 1 3.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.3 0.32 0.66 0.17 1.28 0.03 0.33 16.0 0.07 155 29 — 36 — 0.12 7 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 — 1 — 1 1.02 0.247 0.05 — 0.03 — 0.01 — — — — — — — — 8.0 0.35 0.14 0.26 1.0 — — — — 88 — — 34 — — 4 3 3 2 1 — — — — 1 — — 1 — — 1.07 0.01 0.06 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — 11.5 0.10 1.73 0.97 1.89 0.03 0.20 12.2 — 229 396 0.44 33 — 1.53 27 21 21 13 18 6 9 6 — 9 8 1 7 — 2 2.16 0.06 0.40 0.24 0.22 0.03 0.01 3.80 — 80.6 125 — 23.8 — 0.25 20.6 0.12 0.07 0.37 0.65 0.02 0.08 3.4 — 99 320 0.15 24 — — 12 15 14 3 8 1 5 1 — 1 4 1 1 — — 1.51 0.06 0.02 0.40 0.62 — 0.03 — — — 27.1 — — — — 17.4 0.65 0.41 0.35 2.00 0.01 0.10 — — 1000 — — — — — 2 2 2 — 1 1 1 — — 1 — — — — — 2.33 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.87 0.04 0.34 0.17 0.44 0.01 0.14 4.7 — 80.8 15.4 0.46 0.99 — — 62 40 39 37 28 27 4 26 — 36 34 3 13 — — 0.43 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.01 0.03 1.9 — 45.1 4.6 0.58 0.64 — — 5.9 0.49 0.22 0.28 1.72 0.01 0.12 9.2 — 383 68.5 0.03 1.31 — — 1 572 572 567 573 567 85 567 — 567 567 2 567 — — — 0.26 0.07 0.10 0.65 0.02 0.03 5.7 — 88.4 60.0 0.01 0.75 — — 4.9 0.53 0.18 0.22 129 0.03 0.11 17.8 — 409 10 0.14 48 0.12 — 10 10 8 2 5 4 2 1 — 2 3 1 2 1 — 0.48 0.134 0.07 0.07 0.26 0.02 0.03 — — 120 5.0 — 34 — — 6.9 0.46 0.73 0.32 2.42 0.07 0.46 19.1 — 277 48.3 0.46 67.9 — 6.67 121 348 352 276 281 268 99 271 — 267 270 12 270 — 250 0.58 0.80 0.20 0.06 0.20 0.31 0.06 17.8 — 159 48.6 0.25 57.3 — 2.85 7.2 0.40 0.71 0.31 2.22 0.04 0.46 22.4 — 185 35 0.51 57 — 0.12 66 26 29 19 21 12 6 15 — 15 15 10 13 — 1 0.58 0.11 0.04 0.03 0.24 0.03 0.04 7.9 — 39.0 3.5 0.28 7.5 — — 6.7 0.29 0.71 0.33 2.36 0.01 0.48 22.5 0.12 145 41 0.22 63 — 0.12 34 19 19 6 9 4 2 6 1 2 5 2 7 — 1 0.68 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.15 0.01 0.01 5.0 — 35.3 8.66 0.14 7.7 — — 4.56 0.27 0.65 0.27 2.01 0.04 0.35 14.6 — 182 345 — 59.0 — 3.98 1 156 156 156 156 156 17 156 — 156 156 — 156 — 156 — 0.20 0.08 0.03 0.12 0.31 0.04 4.2 — 197 15.6 — 34.3 — 3.42 8.1 0.45 1.02 0.70 1.27 0.03 0.33 4.0 — 33 20 2.30 105 — — 14 11 11 7 7 2 2 1 — 1 2 1 1 — — 0.34 0.08 0.25 0.12 0.33 0.02 0.14 — — — 6.0 — — — — 7.5 0.40 0.26 0.16 2.73 0.11 0.13 8.9 — 132 127 — 36 — 0.15 8 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 — 4 2 — 2 — 2 0.97 0.12 0.08 0.04 0.40 0.09 — 2.5 — 78.2 32.7 — 7.1 — 0.082 5.7 0.51 0.29 0.13 2.41 0.01 0.13 11 — 203 103 — 62 — — 9 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 — 2 1 — 1 — — 0.92 0.08 0.07 0.21 2.10 — — — — 4.2 — — — — —

OCR for page 133
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition, 1996 Entry No. Feed Name/Description International Feed No. Value as Determined at Maintenance Intake Net Energy Values for Growing-Cattle Mcal/kg Dry Matter (%) Crude Protein (%) Ruminal Undegradability (%) Ether Extract (%) Fiber (%) NDF (%) ADF (%) TDN (%) DE (Mcal/kg) ME (Mcal/kg) NEm NEg 77 Hay, sun-cured, full bloom 1–04–884 56 2.47 2.03 1.18 0.61 89.4 8.1 25 2.9 35.2 64.2 37.5 N — — — — — 8 15 — 7 7 8 8 SD — — — — — 2.43 1.03 — 0.73 1.20 2.19 2.27   TREFOIL, BIRDSFOOT (Lotus corniculatus) 78 Fresh 2–20–786 66 2.91 2.39 1.51 0.91 19.3 20.6 20 4.0 21.2 46.7 — N — — — — — 9 12 — 3 3 11 — SD — — — — — 4.28 3.97 — 1.30 7.74 11.7 — 79 Hay, sun-cured 1–05–044 59 2.60 2.13 1.28 0.71 90.6 15.9 23 2.1 32.3 47.5 36.0 N — — — — — 9 8 — 7 7 1 1 SD — — — — — 1.46 2.31 — 0.52 5.32 — —   WHEAT (Triticum aestivum) 80 Bran 4–05–190 70.0 3.09 2.53 1.63 1.03 89.0 17.4 20 4.3 11.3 42.8 14.0 N — — — — — 86 64 4 56 54 6 6 SD — — — — — 1.23 1.13 10 0.80 1.28 8.68 1.46 81 Flour by-product, less than 9.5% fiber 4–05–205 69 3.04 2.50 1.6 1.00 89.3 18.7 21 4.7 8.5 35.9 11.7 N — — — — — 96 59 3 94 66 26 38 SD — — — — — 1.49 1.15 2 0.85 1.00 6.81 0.93 82 Fresh, early vegetative 2–05–176 73 3.22 2.64 1.73 1.11 22.2 27.4 20 4.4 17.4 46.2 28.4 N — — — — — 2 2 — 1 1 1 1 SD — — — — — 0.99 1.62 — — — — — 83 Grain 4–05–211 88 3.88 3.18 2.18 1.5 90.2 14.2 23 2.34 3.66 11.8 4.17 N — — — — — 136 100 5 34 25 14 43 SD — — — — — 1.97 1.96 6 1.21 1.14 2.02 3.58 84 Hay, sun-cured 1–05–172 58 2.56 2.10 1.24 0.68 88.7 8.7 23 2.2 29.0 68.0 41.0 N — — — — — 12 8 — 6 9 1 1 SD — — — — — 3.09 2.22 — 0.90 2.01 — — 85 Silage 3–05–184 57 2.51 2.06 1.21 0.64 34.2 12.5 20 6.09 26.8 60.7 39.2 N — — — — — 181 181 — 2 3 82 181 SD — — — — — 11.1 2.96 — 2.1 3.80 7.62 5.28 86 Straw 1–05–175 41 1.81 1.48 0.64 0.11 91.3 3.5 40 2.0 41.7 78.9 55.0 N — — — — — 37 68 — 15 25 14 16 SD — — — — — 3.12 1.29 — 1.10 5.81 4.82 4.95 NOTE: Undegradability values that do not have N (number) or SD (standard deviation) entries are based on in situ data and are estimates only. The energy values (TDN, DE, etc.) are based on book values and were not adjusted for the mean composition data. The energy values can be influenced by all the factors that affect the other nutrients as well as amount of intake, processing technique, grain:forage ratio, and thermal stress. For most feeds there is no data base providing means and SD for the energy values. Some trace minerals and the fat-soluble vitamins are not listed in the table because their values were not routinely determined by the laboratories contributing data to this summary. Int. Ref. #, international reference number. not reviewed in this section, but the effects of the most commonly used treatments affecting nutritive value are discussed. However, many of the references useful in providing further insight on methods and details of methods are available in other reviews (e.g., Beeson and Perry, 1982; Berger et al., 1994). Although, processing is used across a wide array of feedstuffs, it is not an issue with many for which uniform methodology applies. This presentation is confined to roughages and grains; methods applied to roughages and grains often vary and/or unprocessed feed is an alternative. Roughages The nutritive value of roughages is often improved through the use of physical and, occasionally, chemical or biological treatment methods. Responses to physical processing such as steaming, chopping, wafering, and grinding (with or without pelleting) are usually in inverse proportion to the quality of the starting forage (Minson, 1963). Coarse chopping, with or without wafering, usually has only a slight influence on nutritive value, although intake might be enhanced through indirect effects such as ease of handling and presentation to the animals. Alternatively, fine grinding, with or without pelleting, can have a major influence, particularly on intake but also on available energy. Potential benefit depends on appropriate supplementation, especially with protein (Campling and Freer, 1966; Weston, 1967). Increased intake usually is observed when mean particle size is reduced to 5 mm, and intake is increased in proportion to further reduction in size with maximal intake achieved when mean particle size is 1 mm

OCR for page 133
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition, 1996 Ash (%) Calcium (%) Phosphorus (%) Magnesium (%) Potassium (%) Sodium (%) Sulfur (%) Copper (mg/kg) Iodine (mg/kg) Iron (mg/kg) Manganese (mg/kg) Selenium (mg/kg) Zinc (mg/kg) Cobalt (mg/kg) Molybdenum (mg/kg) 5.2 0.43 0.20 0.09 1.99 0.07 0.14 29.0 — 140 93 — 54 — — 8 3 4 3 4 3 3 2 — 2 2 — 1 — — 0.813 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.51 0.09 0.01 33.9 — 24.9 16.9 — — — — 11.2 1.74 0.26 0.40 3.26 0.11 0.25 12.8 — 176 83 — 31 — 0.49 7 8 8 6 8 6 1 5 — 5 5 — 5 — 6 3.25 0.40 0.05 0.12 1.66 0.05 — 3.4 — 125 13.6 — 7 — 0.21 7.4 1.70 0.23 0.51 1.92 0.07 0.25 9.26 — 227 29 — 77 — 0.11 5 3 3 3 4 1 1 1 — 3 1 — 1 — 1 0.79 0.09 0.01 0.20 0.25 — — — — 149 — — — — — 6.6 0.14 1.27 0.63 1.37 0.06 0.24 14.2 — 163 134 0.57 110 108 — 37 30 29 17 17 13 8 8 — 10 8 5 6 3 — 0.60 0.03 0.21 0.07 0.10 0.02 0.02 1.8 — 56 14 0.25 36 0.03 — 5.0 0.17 1.01 0.40 1.81 0.02 0.19 12.6 — 170 124 — 102 — 2.1 30 69 70 55 56 44 18 50 — 51 49 — 45 — 39 0.99 0.15 0.13 0.09 0.14 0.06 0.04 3.13 — 118 23 — 35 — 37 13.3 0.42 0.40 0.21 3.50 0.18 0.22 — — 100 — — — — — 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — 0.14 0.03 — — — — — — — — 2.01 0.05 0.44 0.13 0.40 0.01 0.14 6.48 — 45.1 36.6 0.05 38.1 — 0.12 25 90 91 16 16 2 15 16 — 16 16 1 15 — 1 0.26 0.03 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 1.3 — 5.6 2.4 — 2.8 — — 7.9 0.15 0.20 0.12 0.99 0.21 0.22 — — 200 — — — — — 4 8 8 1 5 2 2 — — 1 — — — — — 2.05 0.02 0.08 — 0.44 0.1 0.03 — — — — — — — — 7.5 0.44 0.29 0.17 2.24 0.04 0.21 9.0 — 386 79.5 — 28.0 — 1.61 1 177 177 169 169 168 36 159 — 169 169 — 169 — 169 — 0.32 0.09 0.15 0.73 0.10 0.06 6.0 — 322 47 — 11.0 — 1.06 7.7 0.17 0.05 0.12 1.40 0.14 0.19 3.6 — 157 41 — 6 — 0.05 46 51 48 37 39 5 5 34 — 35 34 — 30 — 2 2.61 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.70 0.01 0.01 1.2 — 39.5 13.7 — 0.77 — 0.01 or less. Pelleting is an improvement over grinding because it produces less dust. The average effect of pelleting and grinding was an 11 percent increase in intake for cattle, with a greater response from young compared to mature animals (Greenhalgh and Reid, 1973). In a summary of research with bulls, Sundstol (1991) reported that grinding by itself and grinding with pelleting enhanced intake of straw by 7 and 37 percent, respectively. The above summary applies mostly to hays and straws. Silages are rarely processed as finely as dry forages although the amount of chopping and particle size reduction that occurs during harvesting can vary significantly. From a summary of available literature on corn (Wilkinson, 1978) and grass silage (McDonald et al., 1991) and within the range of particle lengths commonly observed for silage (mean length, 5 to 15 mm), there is a negative relationship of length to intake; however, the intake decrease is generally less than 10 percent. Digestibility of roughages is decreased by grinding, with or without pelleting, and the decrease is usually in proportion to the intake increase (Blaxter et al., 1956). For 21 studies, Minson (1963) found an average 3.3 percent decrease in dry matter digestibility. Thomson and Beever (1980) reported greater decreases for ground grasses (0 to 15 percent) than for ground legumes (3 to 6 percent). Digestibility decreases are usually attributed to a faster rate of passage of food, with more digestion occurring in the hindgut. In contrast, pelleting and grinding roughages results in lowering heat increment so that the net dietary energy from these roughages is often higher than for the parent product (Osbourne et al., 1976). Chemical alkali is used to upgrade roughages; it hydro-

OCR for page 133
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition, 1996 lyzes chemical bonds between fibrous components in the cell wall. Sodium hydroxide is more effective than ammonia or urea, but it is more expensive and has greater environmental consequences, so ammonia or urea are more widely used. Berger et al. (1994) concluded, from 21 studies on crop residues and 6 on grasses, that ammoniation improved dry matter intake by 22 and 14 percent, respectively. With regard to digestibility, 32 studies on ammoniated crop residues and 10 on grasses demonstrated a 15 and 16 percent improvement, respectively. Urea enhanced intake by 13 percent and digestibility by 23 percent. Oxidation is an alternative chemical procedure that has been used to upgrade roughages and microbial and enzymatic methods have been developed and tested as well. Steam treatment is an additional physical process that has been developed. However, none of these latter processes are widely used in North America at present. For details, the reader is referred to Berger et al. (1994). Grains GENERAL Processing can significantly improve the nutritive value of cereal grains for beef cattle. The most common physical processes used are rolling or grinding the grain, with or without additional moisture; and this is done chiefly to rupture the pericarp and expose starch granules to aid digestion (Beauchemin et al., 1994). In a few cases (see below), processing of whole grain for beef cattle is not beneficial; but this is the exception rather than the rule. When processing is used, results are often variable and unpredictable. Furthermore, processing can affect nutrient requirements in a subtle fashion. To rationalize these effects, significant principles about grain processing will be discussed first. PRINCIPLES OF GRAIN PROCESSING Cattle are less able than other ruminants in the ability to masticate whole grain (Theurer, 1986). Sorghum presents the greatest difficulty followed by wheat, barley, corn, and oats. Morgan and Campling (1978) found that younger cattle can digest whole grain better than older cattle; however, Campling (1991) concluded that further studies on a possible relationship between cattle age or weight digestion of grain are necessary. The ability of rumen microbes to digest grain depends on particle size (Galyean et al., 1981; Beauchemin et al., 1994)—fine particles are digested more rapidly than coarse particles. Microbial digestion proceeds from the inside to the outside of the kernel, and the protein matrix, which surrounds starch granules in the endosperm, is a barrier to the effective digestion of starch (McAllister et al., 1990a). For this and related reasons, there are major differences between the rates at which grains are digested; for example, barley is digested more rapidly than corn (McAllister et al., 1990b). Rapid acid production from the fermentation of starch in the rumen is undesirable; thus, starch bypassing digestion in the rumen altogether can be beneficial, hence processes that inhibit digestion of grain protein will decrease starch digestion in the rumen (Fluharty and Loerch, 1989). Because heat has a major influence on protein digestion, any process using heat treatment is likely to influence grain nutritive value. Unfortunately, in the heat treatment of grain, the relationships of time, temperature, and moisture to protein digestibility are ill-defined; therefore, effects of heat treatments on grain nutritive value would be difficult to interpret. This is further complicated because heat gelatinizes starch, which facilitates microbial digestion (Theurer, 1986) and could therefore offset some or all of the effects of heat. Enhanced microbial protein synthesis and decreased grain protein degradability were associated with steam processing and rolling of sorghum to produce a lighter flake (Xiong et al., 1991). Zinn (1990a) found that the longer the corn was steamed, the faster nonammonia nitrogen was processed in the duodenum of cattle. Roughage source and amount influence dynamics of rumen liquid and particulate flow and may, therefore, influence grain digestion in the rumen (Goetsch et al., 1987). Instrinsic characteristics of grains affect the rate or extent of starch digestion and can reduce benefits from processing. One factor is the form of starch and the other is the presence of tannins. Amylopectin is more digestible than amylose; hence, waxy grains are more digestible than other grains (Sherrod et al., 1969). Tannins present in bird-resistant grains, for example, sorghums, reduce digestibility (Maxson et al., 1973). Within varieties of the same grain, total digestible nutrients (TDN) varied as much as 7 percent (Parrot et al., 1969). Grain quality for beef cattle is positively associated with grain density or fiber content, as shown for barley by Mathison et al. (1991a) and Engstrom et al. (1992). Grain that is fermented less rapidly and extensively in the rumen can escape microbial digestion and may be digested enzymatically in the small intestine. In a review of many trials, Owens et al. (1986) estimated that cattle are 42 percent more efficient in utilizing starch when it is digested in the abomasum and small intestine compared to the forestomach. Thus, processes that cause starch to escape rumen digestion could be beneficial, provided it is effectively digested in the intestine and not passed further to the caecum, where fermentation can resume and significant depletion of nitrogen from the animal may result (Owens et al., 1986). The concept of limited starch digestion in the small intestine does not seem plausible. Furthermore, digestion in the hindgut does not usually compensate for reduced digestion in the rumen (Goetsch et al., 1987).

OCR for page 133
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition, 1996 For these reasons, processed grain that escapes rumen fermentation may not enhance provision of net energy or improve nitrogen utilization in the animal. There are two important points to consider that will affect digestible energy derived by the animal and could further modify the benefits of processing. First, positive effects on digestion can result by combining grains and different forms of grain, as reported between ground, high-moisture corn and dry-rolled sorghum (Stock et al., 1991); between dry corns of different particle size (Turgeon et al., 1983); between dry and high-moisture corn (Stock et al., 1987); between wheat and high-moisture corn (Bock et al., 1991); and between high-moisture sorghum grain and dry-rolled corn (Streeter et al., 1989). Positive associative effects are not consistent (Mader et al., 1991) and not completely understood. The second consideration is level of feeding. Moe and Tyrrell (1979) reported that the metabolizable energy of corn grain for dairy cows was reduced from 3.58 Mcal/kg at maintenance to 2.92 Mcal/kg at 2.5 times maintenance. More recently, Bines et al. (1988) reported that intake effects on digestibility of mixed diets containing processed grain may be significant in young cattle but not in lactating cows. Although interest exists in restricted feeding of feedlot steers and heifers, effects on digestibility attributable to intake levels used in practice are small. CORN In diets containing less than 20 percent roughage, differences in DE and NE for corn—whole or rolled, or ground coarse or fine—are usually fairly small (Goodrich and Meiske, 1966; Vance et al., 1970, 1972; Preston, 1975). Differences in the DE and NE values of these forms of corn in low-roughage diets may be greater for the high-moisture grain (>20 percent water); diets containing unprocessed grain had superior feeding value to diets containing rolled grain, and diets containing rolled grain had superior feeding value to diets containing the ground form (Mader et al., 1991). Relative to whole dry corn, steam processing and flaking improved NE by at least 10 percent when inert roughage was included in the diet but had no effect in an all-concentrate diet (Vance et al., 1970). From studies on diets containing 50 percent corn and 20 percent whole cottonseed, Zinn (1987) concluded that steam flaked corn contained 13.4 and 14.2 percent more NEm and NEg, respectively, than dry-rolled corn. Zinn (1990b) reported that decreasing flake density of steam-processed corn from 0.42 to 0.30 kg/L enhanced starch digestion and improved diet nitrogen utilization. However, effect of flake density on corn NE was small and tended to favor flakes of intermediate density (Zinn, 1990b). Duration of steaming prior to flaking was associated with improved flow of nonammonia nitrogen to the duodenum (Zinn, 1990a). Although an intermediate steaming time of 47 min reduced digestibility of the starch, effect on diet DE was very slight (<2 percent; Zinn, 1990b). Intake of high- or all-concentrate corn-based diets is usually greatest when the corn is whole or is steam processed and flaked. In diets containing intermediate or higher concentrations of roughage (>25 percent), corn is usually ground, adversely affecting digestibility (Moe and Tyrrell, 1977, 1979); fine-ground corn can be detrimental to utilization of the roughage (Moe et al., 1973; Orskov, 1976, 1979). In many areas of North America, corn is preserved wet as a high-moisture grain. Digestible dry matter and energy of diets containing high-moisture corn are at least equal and may be as much as 5 percent higher than the same diet containing dry corn (McCaffree and Merrill, 1968; McKnight et al., 1973; Tonroy et al., 1974; Galyean et al., 1976; MacLeod et al., 1976). These results are also evident in dry corn reconstituted with moisture and stored for a short period of time prior to feeding (Tonroy et al., 1974). Corn containing 25 to 30 percent moisture has greater value than corn that is either drier or wetter than this (Mader et al., 1991) but this may be the result if intake rather than utilization (Clark, 1975). A minor concern about high-moisture grain and corn in particular is that most if not all of the vitamin E may be lost during storage (Young et al., 1975). SORGHUM Whole sorghum is not digested easily by cattle; dry grinding or steam processing and rolling significantly improves the digestibility of sorghum starch and energy. In low-roughage diets and relative to dry grinding, steam processing and flaking increased starch digestibility from 3 to 5 percent (McNeill et al., 1971; Hinman and Johnson, 1974) and DE by 5 to 10 percent (Buchanan-Smith et al., 1968; Husted et al., 1968). In contrast to the above, the NE value was equal in steam-processed and flaked sorghum and ground dry sorghum (Garrett, 1968). This may be explained by the fact that fine grinding enhanced NE by 8 percent, relative to the coarse rolled product (Brethour, 1980). Effectiveness of steam processing and rolling of sorghum may depend on the density of flake produced. Xiong et al. (1991) found dry matter intake and feed efficiency tended to be higher for diets containing sorghum grain with a density of 283 as opposed to 437 g/L. These researchers estimated the lighter grain contained 2.34 Mcal/kg NEm and 1.63 Mcal/kg NEg, as opposed to 2.21 and 1.52, respectively, for the heavier product. Ground, reconsituted sorghum had equivalent DE to the steam-processed and rolled product (Buchanan-Smith et al., 1968; McNeill et al., 1971; Kiesling et al., 1973); however, the latter process may enhance intake (Franks et al., 1972). Dry-heat treatments—for example, micronizing, popping,

OCR for page 133
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition, 1996 exploding, and roasting—may improve sorghum nutritive value as much as steam processing and rolling (Beeson and Perry, 1982). Starch digestibility was enhanced as much by micronizing and popping as it was by steam processing and rolling (Riggs et al., 1970; Hinman and Johnson, 1974; Croka and Wagner, 1975). Again, dry-heat treatments may not be as effective as steam processing to promote intake. In intermediate- and high-roughage diets, dry-rolled sorghum is better utilized than in low-roughage diets (Keating et al., 1965). Thus, provided the whole grain is rolled, this process is likely to have a much smaller influence in these types of diets compared to those containing less roughage. BARLEY Although cattle ate more feed when they were given diets containing whole, as opposed to rolled barley, efficiency of utilization was greater for the rolled barley diets (Mathison et al., 1991b). Yaramecio et al. (1991) reported NEg values of 1.15 and 1.80 Mcal/kg for diets containing whole or rolled barley and most of this difference appeared to be due to improved digestibility. There is greater controversy about the value of steam-processed and rolled barley compared to dry-rolled barley. Zinn (1993) found steam-processed barley contained 2.24 Mcal/kg NEm and 1.56 Mcal/kg NEg, respectively, vs 2.14 and 1.47 for the dry-rolled grain. In the same experiment, benefits of a thin flake (0.19 kg/L) as opposed to a thick flake (0.39 kg/L) were evident. By contrast, steam processing of barley failed to improve the feeding value of a barley diet in two Canadian studies (Mathison et al., 1991a; Engstrom et al., 1992). Parrot et al. (1969) reported that steam processing and rolling did not improve digestibility of barley compared to dry rolling except when the initial DE value of the barley was low. Steam processing prior to rolling may be useful to maximize intake of barley diets, particularly in dry areas where dry-rolled or ground barley becomes too dusty. When barley is rolled or ground, fines should also be avoided to minimize digestive disturbances such as bloat (Hironaka et al., 1979). High-moisture barley has a feeding value equal to dry barley (Kennelly et al., 1988) and is superior in the rolled as opposed to whole form (Rode et al., 1986). In medium- to high-roughage diets, dry-rolled barley was equivalent to the ammoniated high-moisture whole grain (Mandell et al., 1988) and steam-rolled dry barley was superior to the whole dry grain (Morgan et al., 1991). OATS Starch digestibility of a high-grain whole oat diet was 0.61 which contrasts to 0.69 when the oats were dry-rolled (Orskov et al., 1980). In mixed diets, whole oat grains seem to be well digested by cattle and there is little benefit in further processing (Campling, 1991). WHEAT Starch digestibility of a high-grain whole wheat diet was 0.83 and this was increased to 0.99 when the wheat wheat was rolled (Orskov et al., 1980). In contrast to oats, digestibility of starch in mixed diets containing whole wheat was only 0.60, as opposed to 0.86 for the same diet when the wheat was rolled and crushed (Toland, 1978). Steam-processed and rolled wheat, with a thick flake, has the same value as coarse ground or dry-rolled wheat (Brethour, 1970). Finely ground wheat should be avoided in beef cattle diets to maximize intake and prevent acidosis. REFERENCES Beauchemin, K.A., T.A.McAllister, Y.Dong, B.I.Fair, and K.J.Cheng. 1994. Effects of mastication on digestion of whole cereal grains by cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 72:236–246. Beeson, W.M., and T.W.Perry. 1982. Effect of processing on nutritive value of feeds: Cereal grains. Pp. 193–212 in Handbook of Nutritive Value of Processed Food, M.Rechcigl, ed. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press. Berger, L.L., G.C.Fahey, L.D.Bourquin, and E.C.Titgemeyer. 1994. Modification of forage quality after harvest. Pp. 922–966 in Forage Quality, Evaluation, and Utilization, G.C.Fahey, M.Collins, D.R. Mertens, and L.E.Moser, eds. Madison, Wise.: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society, Soil Science Society. Bines, J.A., W.H.Broster, J.D.Stutton, V.J.Broster, D.J.Napper, T.Smith, and J.W.Siviter. 1988. Effect of amount consumed and diet composition on the apparent digestibility in cattle and sheep. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 110:249–259. Blaxter, K.L., N.McC.Graham, and F.W.Wainman. 1956. Some observations on the digestibility of food by sheep, and on related problems. Br. J. Nutr. 10:69–91. Bock, B.J., R.T.Brandt, D.L.Harmon, S.J.Anderson, J.K.Elliott, and T.B.Avery. 1991. Mixtures of wheat and high-moisture corn in finishing diets: Feedlot performance and in situ rate of starch digestion in steers. J. Anim. Sci. 69:2703–2710. Brethour, J.R. 1970. The use and value of wheat in beef cattle feeding. Pp. 177–190 in Wheat in Livestock and Poultry Feeds: Proceedings of an International Symposium at Oklahoma State University. June 18–19. Brethour, J.R. 1980. Nutritional value of milo for cattle. Report of Progress 384, Roundup 67, pp. 5–8. Fort Hays Branch, Kansas State University. Buchanan-Smith, J.G., R.Totusek, and A.D.Tillman. 1968. Effect of methods of processing on digestibility and utilization of grain sorghum by cattle and sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 27:525–530. Campling, R.C. 1991. Processing cereal grains for cattle—A review. Livestock Prod. Sci. 28:223–234. Campling, R.C., and M.Freer. 1966. Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by cows. 8. Experiments with ground, pelleted roughages. Br. J. Nutr. 20:229–244. Chalupa, W. 1980. Chemical control of rumen microbial metabolism. P. 325 in Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology, Y.Ruckebusch and P.Thivend, eds. Lancaster, England: MTP Press. Clark, J.H. 1975. Utilization of high-moisture grains by dairy and beef

OCR for page 133
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition, 1996 cattle. Pp. 205–238 in Proceedings of the 2nd International Silage Research Conference. Cedar Falls, Iowa: National Silo Association, Inc. Croka, D.C., and D.G.Wagner. 1975. Micronized sorghum grain. III. Energetic efficiency for feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 40:936–939. D’Alfonso, T.H., W.B.Roush, and J.A.Ventura. 1992. Least-cost poultry rations with nutrient variability: A comparison of linear programming with a margin of safety and stochastic programming models. Poult. Sci. 71:255–262. Engstrom, D.F., G.W.Mathison, and L.A.Goonewardene. 1992. Effect of beta-glucan, starch, and steam vs dry rolling of barley grain on its degradability and utilization by steers. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 37:33–46. Fluharty, F.L., and S.C.Loerch. 1989. Chemical treatment of ground corn to limit starch digestion. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 69:173–180. Franks, L.G., J.R.Newsom, R.E.Renbarger, and R.Totusek. 1972. Relationship of rumen volatile fatty acids to type of grains, sorghum grain processing method and feedlot performance. J. Anim. Sci. 35:404–409. Galyean, M.L., D.G.Wagner, and F.N.Owens. 1976. Site and extent of starch digestion in steers fed processed corn rations. J. Anim. Sci. 43:1088–1094. Galyean, M.L., D.G.Wagner, and F.N.Owens. 1981. Dry matter and starch disappearance of corn and sorghum as influenced by particle size and processing. J. Dairy Sci. 64:1804–1812. Garrett, W.N. 1968. Influence of method of processing on the feeding value of milo and wheat. Eighth Annu. Calif. Feeders Day Rept. Goetsch, A.L., F.N.Owens, M.A.Funk, and B.E.Doran. 1987. Effects of whole or ground corn with different forms of hay in 85% concentrate diets on digestion and passage rates in beef heifers. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 18:151–164. Goodrich, R.D., and J.C.Meiske. 1966. Whole corn grain vs. ground corn grain, long hay vs. ground hay and 10 lb. vs 15 lb. corn silage for finishing cattle. Minn. Beef Cattle Feeders Day Res. Rept. B-76:61–67. Greenhalgh, J.F.D., and G.W.Reid. 1973. Long- and short-term effects of pelleting a roughage for sheep. Anim. Prod. 19:77–86. Hinman, D.D., and R.R.Johnson. 1974. Influence of processing methods on digestion of sorghum starch in high-concentrate beef cattle rations. J. Anim. Sci. 39:417–422. Hironaka, R., N.Kimura, and G.C.Kozub. 1979. Influence of feed particle size on rate and efficiency of gain, characteristics of rumen fluid and rumen epithelium, and numbers of rumen protozoa. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 59:395–402. Husted, W.T., S.Mehen, W.H.Hale, M.Little, and B.Theurer. 1968. Digestibility of mil processed by different methods. J. Anim. Sci. 27:531–534. Isichei, C.O., and W.G.Bergen. 1980. The effect of monensin on the composition of abomasal nitrogen flow in steers fed grain and silage rations. J. Anim. Sci. 51(Suppl. 1)371. Keating, E.R., W.J.Saba, W.H.Hale, and B.Taylor. 1965. Further observations on the digestion of mil and barley by steers and lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 24:1080–1085. Kennelly, J.J., G.W.Mathison, and G.de Boer. 1988. Influence of high-moisture barley on the performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 68:811–820. Kiesling, H.E., J.E.McCroskey, and D.G.Wagner. 1973. A comparison of energetic efficiency of dry-rolled and reconstituted rolled sorghum grain by steers using indirect calorimetry and the comparative slaughter technique. J. Anim. Sci. 37:790–795. Loerch, S.C., L.L.Berger, D.Gianola, and G.C.Fahey, Jr. 1983. Effect of dietary protein source and energy level on in situ nitrogen disappearance of various protein sources. J. Anim. Sci. 56:206–216. MacLeod, G.K., D.N.Mowat, and R.A.Curtis. 1976. Feeding value for finishing steers and Holstein male calves of whole dried corn and of whole and rolled high moisture acid-treated corn. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 56:43–49. Mader, T.L., J.M.Dahlquist, R.A.Britton, and V.E.Krause. 1991. Type and mixtures of high-moisture corn in beef cattle finishing diets. J. Anim. Sci. 69:3480–3486. Mandell, I.B., H.H.Nicholson, and G.I.Christison. 1988. The effects of barley processing on nutrient digestion within the gastro-intestinal tract of beef cattle fed mixed diets. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 68:191–198. Mathison, G.W., R.Hironaka, B.K.Kerrigan, I.Vlach, L.P.Milligan, and R.D.Wesenburger. 1991a. Rate of starch degradation, apparent digestibility and rate and efficiency of steer gain as influenced by grain volume-weight and processing method. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 71:867–878. Mathison, G.W., D.F.Engstrom, and D.D.MacLeod. 1991b. Effect of feeding whole and rolled barley to steers in the morning or afternoon in diets containing differing proportions of hay and grain. Anim. Prod. 53:321–330. Maxson, W.E., R.L.Shirley, J.E.Bertrand, and A.Z.Palmer. 1973. Energy values of corn, bird-resistant and non bird-resistant sorghum grain in rations fed to steers. J. Anim. Sci. 37:1451–1457. McAllister, T.M., K.-J.Cheng, L.M.Rode, and J.G.Buchanan-Smith. 1990a. Use of formaldehyde to regulate digestion of barley starch. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 70:581–589. McAllister, T.M., L.M.Rode, D.J.Major, K.-J.Cheng, and J.G. Buchanan-Smith. 1990b. Effect of ruminal microbial colonization on cereal grain digestion. Can. J. Anim. 70:571–579. McCaffree, J.D., and W.G.Merrill. 1968. High moisture corn for dairy cows in early lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 51:553–560. McDonald, P., A.R.Henderson, and S.J.E.Heron. 1991. The Biochemistry of Silage, 2nd Ed. Marlow, Bucks., U.K.: Chalcombe Publications. McKnight, D.R., G.K.MacLeod, J.G.Buchanan-Smith, and D.N.Mowat. 1973. Utilization of ensiled or acid-treated high-moisture shelled corn by cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 53:491–496. McNeill, J.W., G.D.Potter, and J.K.Riggs. 1971. Ruminal and postruminal carbohydrate utilization in steers fed processed sorghum grain. J. Anim. Sci. 33:1371–1374. Minson, D.J. 1963. The effect of pelleting and wafering on the feeding value of roughage—A review. J. Br. Grassland Soc. 18:39–44. Moe, P.W., H.F.Tyrrell, and N.W.Hoover. 1973. Physical form and energy value of corn in timothy hay diets for lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci. 60:752–758. Moe, P.W., and H.F.Tyrrell. 1977. Effects of feed intake and physical form on energy value of corn in timothy hay diets for lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci. 60:752–758. Moe, P.W., and H.F.Tyrrell. 1979. Effect of endosperm type on incremental energy value of corn grain for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 62:447–454. Morgan, C.A., and R.C.Campling. 1978. Digestibility of whole barley and oat grains by cattle of different ages. Anim. Prod. 27:323–329. Morgan, E.K., M.L.Gibson, M.L.Nelson, and J.R.Males. 1991. Utilization of whole or steamrolled barley fed with forages to wethers and cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 33:59–78. National Research Council. 1985. Ruminant Nitrogen Usage. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council. 1989. Nutrient Requirements of Horses, Fifth Revised Ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Orskov, E.R. 1976. The effect of processing on digestion and utilization of cereals by ruminants. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35:245–252. Orskov, E.R. 1979. Recent information on processing of grain for ruminants. Livestock Prod. Sci. 6:335–347. Orskov, E.R., R.J.Barnes, and B.A.Lukins. 1980. A note on the effect of different amounts of NaOH application on digestibility by cattle of barley, oats, wheat and maize. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 94:271–273. Osbourne, D.F., D.E.Beever, and D.J.Thomson. 1976. The influence of physical processing on the intake, digestion and utilization of dried herbage. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35:191–200.

OCR for page 133
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition, 1996 Owens, F.N., R.A.Zinn, and Y.K.Kim. 1986. Limitations to starch digestion in the ruminant small intestine. J. Anim. Sci. 63:1634–1648. Parrot, J.C., S.Mehen, W.H.Hale, M.Little, and B.Theurer. 1969. Digestibility of dry rolled and steam processed flaked barley. J. Anim. Sci. 28:425–428. Poos, M.I., T.L.Hanson, and T.J.Klopfenstein. 1979. Monensin effect on diet digestibility, ruminal protein bypass and microbial protein synthesis. J. Anim. Sci. 48:1516. Preston, R.L. 1975. Net energy evaluation of cattle finishing rations containing varying proportions of corn grain and corn silage. J. Anim. Sci. 41:622–624. Riggs, J.K., J.W.Sorenson, J.L.Adame, and L.M.Schake. 1970. Popped sorghum grain for finishing beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 30:634–638. Rode, L.M., K.J.Cheng, and J.W.Costerton. 1986. Digestion by cattle of urea-treated, ammonia-treated or rolled high moisture barley. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 66:711–721. Sherrod, L.B., R.C.Albin, and R.D.Furr. 1969. Net energy of regular and waxy sorghum grains for finishing steers. J. Anim. Sci. 29:997–1000. Stock, R.A., D.R.Brink, R.T.Brandt, J.K.Merrill, and K.K.Smith. 1987. Feeding combinations of high moisture corn and dry corn to finishing cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 65:282–289. Stock, R.A., M.H.Sindt, R.M.Cleale, and R.A.Britton. 1991. High-moisture corn utilization in finishing cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 69:1645–1656. Streeter, M.N., D.G.Wagner, F.N.Owens, and C.A.Hibberd. 1989. Combinations of high-moisture harvested sorghum grain and dry-rolled corn: Effects on site and extent of digestion in beef heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 67:1623–1633. Sundstol, F. 1991. Large scale utilization of straw for ruminant production systems. Pp. 55–60 in Recent Advances on the Nutrition of Herbivores, Y.W.Ho, H.K.Wong, N.Abdullah, Z.A.Tajuddin, eds. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Society of Animal Production. Theurer, C.B. 1986. Grain processing effects on starch utilization by ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 63:1649–1662. Thomson, D.J., and D.E.Beever. 1980. The effect of conservation on the digestion of forages by ruminants. Pp. 291–308 in Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants: Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology, Y.Ruckebusch and P.Thivend, eds. Lancaster, U.K.: MTP Press Ltd. Toland, P.C. 1978. Influence of some digestive processes on the digestion by cattle of cereal grains fed whole. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 18:29–33. Tonroy, B.R., T.W.Perry, and W.M.Beeson. 1974. Dry, ensiled high-moisture, ensiled reconstituted high moisture and volatile fatty acid treated high moisture corn for growing-finishing beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 39:931–936. Turgeon, O.A., D.R.Brink, and R.A.Britton. 1983. Corn particle size mixtures, roughage level and starch utilization in finishing steer diets. J. Anim. Sci. 57:739–749. Vance, R.D., R.R.Johnson, E.W.Klosterman, B.W.Dehority, and R. L.Preston. 1970. All-concentrate rations for growing-finishing cattle. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Research Summary 49. Vance, R.D., R.L.Preston, E.W.Klosterman, and V.R.Cahill. 1972. Utilization of whole shelled and crimped corn grain with varying proportions of corn silage by growing-finishing steers. J. Anim. Sci. 35:598–605. Weston, R.H. 1967. Factors limiting the intake of feed by sheep. II. Studies with wheaten hay. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 18:983–1002. Whetstone, H.D., C.L.Davis, and M.P.Bryant. 1981. Effect of monensin on breakdown of protein by ruminal microorganisms in vitro. J. Anim. Sci. 53:803–809. Wilkinson, J.M. 1978. The ensiling of forage maize: Effects on composition and nutritive value. Pp. 201–237 in Forage Maize, E.S.Bunting, B.F.Pain, R.H.Phipps, J.M.Wilkinson, amd R.E.Gunn, eds. London: Agricultural Research Council. Xiong, Y., S.J.Bartle, and R.L.Preston. 1991. Density of steam-flaked sorghum grain, roughage level, and feeding regimen for feedlot steers. J. Anim. Sci. 69:1707–1718. Yaramecio, B.J., G.W.Mathison, D.F.Engstrom, L.A.Roth, and W. R.Caine. 1991. Effect of ammoniation on the preservation and feeding value of barley grain for growing-finishing cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 71:439–455. Young, L.G., A.Lun, J.Pos, R.P.Forshaw, and D.Edmeades. 1975. Vitamin E stability in corn and mixed feed. J. Anim. Sci. 40:495–499. Zinn, R.A. 1987. Influence of lasalocid and monensin plus tylosin on comparative feeding value of steam-flaked versus dry-rolled corn in diets for feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 65:256–266. Zinn, R.A. 1990a. Influence of steaming time on site of digestion of flaked corn in steers . J. Anim. Sci. 68:776–781. Zinn, R.A. 1990b. Influence of flake density on the comparative feeding value of steam-flaked corn for feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 68:767–778. Zinn, R.A. 1993. Influence of processing on the comparative feeding value of barley for feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 71:3–10. Zinn, R.A., and F.N.Owens. 1983. Site of protein digestion in steers: predictability. J. Anim. Sci. 56:707.