Field peas have been successfully used in several beef cattle diets with equal or better performance compared to control rations. Peas are highly digestible in the rumen but the fermentation rate is slower than several other feeds for both starch and protein. Peas are palatable, with increased intake observed in some of the diets that included field peas. Processing peas does not appear to be critical based on available data. This nutrient-dense grain legume contains modest fiber levels, high energy levels, and is a good source of crude protein. Peas may be best utilized as a modest proportion of the concentrate in beef cattle rations. Creep feeds should contain 25% to 35% field peas but no more than ~67% peas for optimum return. Growing and finishing steers can utilize peas as a protein and energy source. Feeder cattle can utilize high levels of peas in the diet, but economics suggest usage in accordance with nutrient requirements. As a protein supplement, peas should be limited to 20% to 30% of the ration . Field peas are very palatable for beef cow supplementation and can be used in formulating range cake or supplements at any level that is economically competitive.

Introduction

Field peas are an energy- and protein-dense feedstuff that can compete with many other feeds for selected nutrients (Table 1). Energy content is comparative with barley and corn, and as a protein source peas are comparable to wheat midds, canola meal, and sunflower meal. Peas have not been widely used in beef diets in the U.S. because of availability and, to some extent, competitive prices. Beef cattle in the U.S. will be a salvage market for field peas, which are well accepted for ruminants in Europe, especially as a protein source in silage-based diets (Table 2).

Palatability, animal performance, and net return are the ultimate tests of the worth of a feed. Field peas may best be utilized in scenarios where nutrient density is important. Examples include diets where voluntary intake is limited, such as creep feed, receiving rations, or supplementing grazing livestock.

There is substantial positive anecdotal experience in feeding field peas to beef cattle. Research trials quantify comparative animal performance and specify optimum economic levels of use in specific diets. This paper summarizes research and recommendations for feeding field peas to beef cattle.

Palatability

Field peas have been observed to be highly palatable in some feeding trials. Feed intake has generally increased for diets with peas compared to diets without peas in several North Dakota State University trials and studies in Europe.

In a feedlot finishing experiment (Anderson, 1999b), peas were fed at 76% of the diet dry matter (76%) to determine if there were any palatability or anti-nutritional concerns. Intake was numerically greater for the pea treatment, suggesting no inhibitory factors were present. In a series of silage-based feeding studies in Europe (Weiss and Raymond, 1989), diets with peas were consumed at 102% of diets with soybean meal.

However, in a Colorado State University study (Flatt and Stanton, 2000) where stepped levels of peas (0, 5, 10, and 20% of ration dry matter) were included in finishing diets, a linear decrease in intake was observed, but gains were similar and feed efficiency improved with increasing proportion of peas. Reed et al. (2002a) also observed a decrease in intake when field peas were substituted for corn in a diet that was 50% grain. Digestibility of dry matter, organic matter, and neutral detergent fiber improved (P < .08) with increasing field pea levels in the ruminally canulated steers used in this 4 x 4 Latin Square design. 

 

Table 1.Comparison of nutrients in field peas with other feedstuffs.
Item	Field Peas*	Corn**	Barley**	Wheat Midds**	Sunflower Meal**	Canola Meal**
Dry matter, %	89	89	89	89	92	82
	Dry matter basis
TDN, %	87	90	88	80	65	69
NEg, Mcal/lb	.67	.70	.63	.58	.40	.45
Crude Protein, %	25.3	9.8	13.2	18.7	26.0	40.9
Calcium, %	.15	.03	.05	.17	.45	.70
Phosphorous, %	.44	.32	.35	1.01	1.02	1.20
Potassium, %	1.13	.44	.57	1.81	1.27	1.37
	* - NRC, 1984; ** - NRC, 1996

 

Table 2. Performance of beef cattle fed field peas or soybean meal as protein supplements in corn silage based diets.
		Percent Peas	Gain Ratio	Intake Ratio	Feed Efficiency Ratio
Trial	Cattle Type
1	Normandy	29	103	99	95
2	Normandy	26	101	103	104
3	Holstein cross	25	103	104	103
4	Charolais	23	100	102	100
5	Charolais	23	103	101	96
Mean			102	102	100

Adapted from Weiss and Raymond, 1989

Rumen Degradability

Peas are known to contain highly degradable protein estimated at 78% to 94% digested in the rumen (NRC, 1989; Aufrere et al., 1994) leaving modest amounts as by-pass or escape protein. However, the disappearance rate (1.6% per hour) is slower during the first six hours (Lindberg, 1981) for peas than soybean meal (4.5% per hour) but increases in rate thereafter. The more slowly degraded or sustained release nitrogen fraction found in peas should be beneficial for growth of rumen microbes and be a positive influence on rumen ph and feed efficiency.

Processing Field Peas

A trial with field peas in growing cattle diets was conducted using individually fed steers in a Calan headgate facility at NDSU (Bock, 2000). Seven steers were assigned to each of three treatments. Treatments were whole peas, rolled peas, or ground peas fed as 40% of the totally mixed diet. No differences (P>.10) in intake, gain, or feed efficiency were observed.

A South Dakota State University finishing trial (Birkelo et al., 2000) included a whole pea and rolled pea treatment, with peas included at 10% of the dry matter intake. No statistical differences ( P>.10) were detected due to processing method.

Considering these trials, it appears that processing field peas is not necessary for feeding. However, whole peas do not mix as well in totally mixed diets. Further processing research is warranted.

Effect of Variety

Variation in protein content exists among varieties. A trial comparing Profi vs. Integra (24% vs. 17% crude protein ) (Bock and Anderson, 2001) suggests that there are animal performance differences due to varieties related to protein level even though the control diet contained protein levels, recommended by NRC (1996).

Creep Feed Research

In a two-year study (Anderson, 1999a) with 128 cow/calf pairs, wheat midds and field peas were offered in four reciprocal combinations as creep feeds to determine optimum level of peas (Table 3). Treatments were reciprocal amounts of dry rolled peas and pelleted wheat midds at 0-100%, 33-67%,
67-33%, and 100-0%, respectively. Peas were coarsely rolled and wheat midds were fed as � inch diameter pellets. Nutrients in peas and wheat midds (Table 1) were not identical, but the protein content of each exceeded recommended levels for creep feed (14-16%).

Feed intake increased (P<.05) with increasing level of field peas in the diet (Table 3). Calves offered 100% midds consumed 5.89 lbs of creep feed per day compared to 8.72
for calves offered 100% field peas during the 56-day study period.

Calf gains increased from 2.82 pounds per day at 100% midds to 3.17 lb at 67% and 100% peas. Gains from 33% peas averaged 3.11 pounds per day. Feed efficiency decreased, however, with increasing pea levels.

Feed cost per pound of gain was similar ($.065 per pound) at 0 and 33% field peas using $60/ton for midds and $2.20 for peas, but decreased efficiency caused an increase to over $.10 per pound for the 100% pea treatment. The added value from additional weight gain exceeded added feed cost at higher pea levels; however, the optimum level in this study was 67% peas. When weaned calves sell for $90/cwt, peas substituted for wheat midds in creep rations at 33, 67, and 100%, respectively, will result in a return of $5.20, $8.06, and $3.38 /60 lb bushel. This study indicates peas are a very palatable and economical for creep fed calves at 67% of the diet or less.

In another creep feeding study in North Dakota, field peas were included in limited intake creep feeds offered to calves grazing short grass prairie with their dams (Landblom et al., 2000). If creep feeds act as a supplement to intake of grazed forage, it may be more economical to limit feed. Eighty cow/calf pairs were used to compare four treatments including 1) no creep feed; 2) 33% peas; 3) 67% peas, and 4) 100% peas. Wheat midds were used in the diet in reciprocal amounts with peas. Salt was added to limit intake at a rate of 8% during the first 28 days and 16% during the last 49 days of the trial period. Intake was approximately 3 lbs per head daily for all creep rations (Table 4). Gains tended to be greater (P =.11) for all creep feed treatments vs. no creep feed. No differences (P>.10) were observed due to level of peas, but the 67% pea diet provided numerically superior gains and feed efficiency. Greatest economic return was observed in the 67% field pea diet with a net return of $1.00 for each dollar spent on creep feed, essentially a 100% return on investment.

    

Table 3.Creep feeds with increasing levels of field peas.
	Treatment
Item	0% Peas	33% Peas	67% Peas	100% Peas	St Err.
No. pairs/replicates	31/4	32/4	32/4	33/4	�
Initial wt, lb	361	353	362	358	11.37
Final wt, lb	519	527	540	535	13.35
DM intake, lb	5.89 a	6.43 a,b	7.63 b	8.72 c	.43
Avg. daily gain, lb	2.82 a	3.11 b	3.17 b	3.17 b	.14
Gain/feed	.48 a	.49 a	.42 a,b	.38 b	.03
Value added above
feed cost, $/hd	�	9.66	10.83	6.99	�
a,b,c - values with different superscripts are significantly different, (P<.05) Anderson, 1999a

 

Table 4.Limiting intake of pea/wheat midds creep feed with salt.
	Treatment
Item	No Creep	33% Peas	67% Peas	100% Peas	P - value
No. pairs/replicates	22/2	22/2	22/2	22/2	�
Initial wt, lb	413.5	427.3	427.3	409.6	�
Final wt, lb	597.7	660.2	688.0	63.06	.11
DM intake, lb	0	2.93	3.19	3.03	�
Avg. daily gain, lb	1.65	2.08	2.33	1.97	.11
Gain/feed	�	.147	.210	.080	.48
Value added above feed cost, $/hd
	�	13.33	24.91	-4.65	�
Landblom et al., 2001

Field Peas in Feedlot Diets

The greatest potential volume for use of field peas in the Northern Plains states and Prairie Provinces is in feeder calf diets. However, field peas will have to compete economically with other feeds such as barley and wheat midds based on nutrient costs. Peas should be used in balanced diets based on nutrient requirements (NRC, 1996) and performance goals. The relatively high protein content of peas and available energy make this feedstuff most useful at low to modest levels. This section reports research using field peas in diets for wintering and growing steers and heifers and for finishing steers.

Growing Experiments

Field peas are widely used by cattlemen as a protein supplement for wintering calves. The optimum level of peas in a forage-based diet was investigated by Reed et al. (2002b).

Field peas were offered at 0, 2, 4, and 6 pounds in a 4 x 4 Latin Square trial to steers consuming medium quality grass hay. Total dry matter and organic matter intake increased (P<.05) with increasing field pea supplement level but forage dry matter and organic matter decreased (P<.05) as expected.

Rumen volatile fatty acids, total tract crude protein digestibility, and apparent ruminal dry matter digestibility tended to increase linearly (P=.09) with increasing field pea level. Peas had no effect (P>.11) on total tract dry matter or organic matter digestibility. Field peas acted like other cereal grains in supplementing forage diets.

Weaned crossbred steer calves were fed three 60% concentrate diet treatments of 1) barley with canola meal at crude protein levels recommended by NRC (1996); 2) barley with canola meal added to equalize the crude protein level of the field pea diet; and 3) field peas as the concentrate source (Table 5). The protein level in the field pea diet exceeded NRC (1996) recommended nutrient requirements. Dry matter intake of the growing diet with field peas was numerically greater than the control (12.3%) and barley plus canola meal (9.3%). Similarly, gains were numerically greater from the pea diet over the barley treatment (16.8%) and barley plus canola meal (7%). Feed efficiency improved numerically with peas in the diet over the barley (5.8%) and barley-canola (3.4%) treatments. In this trial, the breakeven price for a bushel of peas is approximately 170% of the price of a bushel of barley for growing calf diets (Anderson, 1999b).

Growing heifer calves were fed field peas as an isonitrogenous replacement for barley and soybean meal with no effect ( P>.10) on intake, gain, or feed efficiency (Poland and Landblom, 1998). In another study, performance was similar but intake decreased (P<.10) in the pea diet, tending to improve feed efficiency. Peas were used as a protein source compared to soybean meal in silage-based diets with several European trials reported by Wiess and Raymond (1989). In five trials, intake of pea supplemented diets averaged 102% of control, gain averaged 102% of controls, and feed conversion was equal (Table 2).

In a demonstration trial, wintering replacement heifer calves were fed 5 pounds of either field peas or wheat midds in a limit fed, forage-based diet. Similar gains and feed efficiency were observed (Anderson, 1998).

Finishing Experiments

Steer calves were fed totally mixed finishing diets with dry rolled barley and canola meal or field peas as the grain source. TMR diets were fed to appetite once daily in fenceline bunks. Feed intake tended to be greater for peas (4.7%) than barley in the finishing diets. Daily gain increased 5.5% (.20 lb/hd/d) for peas over barley. Feed efficiency was equal (Table 6). Carcass traits were similar with the exception of marbling scores and the percent choice carcasses, which were greater (P<.05) for steers fed field peas. Feed cost per pound of gain would be equal with peas at $2.03 per 60 lb bushel compared to barley at $1.50. The reader could interpret that peas are worth 135% the price of a bushel of barley when used as the primary concentrate in finishing diets (Anderson, 1999b).

 

Table 5.Field peas in diets for growing steer calves.
	Treatment
Item	Control Barley	Barley/Canola Meal	Field Peas	Std Err
No head/reps	27/4	27/4	26/4	�
Initial wt, lb	579	581	578	20.7
Final wt, lb	707	717	727	21.8
DM intake, lb	15.32	16.01	17.21	.56
DM intake, % BW	2.39 a	2.47 a,b	2.65 b	.09
Avg. daily gain, lb	2.61	2.78	3.05	.22
Gain/feed	.170	.174	.180	.016
Fecal nitrogen, %	12.38 a	15.12 b	18.89 c	1.76
Feed cost/lb gain, $	.223	.231	.210	�
a,b,c - values with different superscripts are significantly different, (P<.05)  Anderson, 1999b

 

Table 6.Field peas in diets for finishing steers.
	Treatment
Item	Barley/Canola Meal	Field Peas	Std Err
No. steers/reps	41/4	42/4	�
Initial wt, lb	711	716	14.5
Final wt, lb	1158	1177	21.2
DM intake, lb	21.54	22.59	.45
Avg. daily gain, lb	3.63	3.83	.13
Gain/feed	.170	.171	.01
Feed cost/lb gain, $	.230	.245	�
Dressing percent	62.1	62.3	.01
Yield grade	2.14	2.35	.13
Marbling score	369a	395 b	7.12
Percent Choice/Prime	24.8	43.9	�
	a,b - values with different superscripts are significantly different, (P<.05) Anderson, 1999b

Field peas were used as a protein supplement at 10% of the finishing diet dry matter in comparison with soybean meal in a South Dakota State University study (Birkelo et al., 2000). No differences were observed (P<.05) in any of the feedlot performance or carcass traits measured (Table 7); however, the first 56-day period produced improved gains and feed conversion for the field pea diets.

Flatt and Stanton, (2000) fed peas at 0, 5, 10 and 20% of finishing diets to steers and heifers substituting field pea protein for soybean meal. The Profi peas in their trial were 20% protein. Increasing levels of peas decreased intake (P<.05) but did not affect gain, thereby improving feed efficiency linearly with increasing field pea level (P<.05). Carcass traits were not affected (Table 8). Mortality was lower for the calves fed any amount of field peas over control (P<.05).

Beef Cow Supplementation Research

There is very little research on feeding peas to beef cows; however, it is practiced widely where peas are grown. Schaefer et al (2000) substituted stepped levels of field peas for a barley-canola meal protein supplement in diets for gestating cows consuming grass hay. No differences (P>.10) were observed in cow gain, condition score, calving or other performance traits.

General Feeding Recommendations

The major factor in considering to use field peas in beef cattle diets is the cost of protein and/or energy from other feedstuffs available. Growing peas as a protein source may reduce off-farm expenses and provide nutrition for improved animal performance, leading to increased net returns for an integrated crop/livestock enterprise. All trials with beef cattle report equal or better performance compared to other experimental diets. The nutrient density of field peas is greater than most other feedstuffs, so including peas in limit fed applications may be the best use of this feed. This use includes creep feed, growing calves, and supplementing forage diets (i.e.range cake).

Processing peas does not appear
to be essential for satisfactory performance but diets mix better when peas are coarsely rolled. Field peas and other feeds should not be fed at protein levels above NRC (1996) recommendations to prevent extra nitrogen from entering the atmosphere through volatilization or feed yard runoff with high nitrogen levels entering the water table.

   

Table 7.Field peas in finishing diets for heavy feeders.
	Treatment
	Control	Whole Peas	Rolled Peas
Percent of peas, DM basis	0	10	10
No head/reps	52/6	52/6	52/6
Initial wt, lb	917	912	914
Final wt, lb	1333	1322	1332
DM intake, lb	24.27	23.75	23.89
Avg. daily gain, lb	3.94	3.90	3.98
Gain/feed	.162	.164	.166
Dressing percent	59.0	59.1	58.1
Yield grade	2.6	2.5	2.6
Percent Choice/Prime	76.5	82.4	84.3
	Birkelo et al., 2000

 

Table 8.Increasing levels of field peas in diets for growing and finishing steers.
	Treatment
	0% Peas	5% Peas	10% Peas	20% Peas	Std Err
No hd/reps	75/6	78/6	78/6	78/6	�
Initial wt, lb	608	601	597	602	31.65
Final wt, lb	1139	1130	1107	1120	38.05
DM intake, lb, a,b	20.65	19.42	18.87	18.48	.64
Avg daily gain, lb	3.17	3.14	3.06	3.12	.11
Gain/feed, a,b	.153	.161	.162	.168	.03
Dressing percent	63.71	63.72	63.01	63.50	.39
Yield grade	2.35	2.38	2.29	2.37	.10
Marbling score	2.28	2.12	2.40	2.42	.12
Percent Choice/Prime	85.33	85.90	75.95	75.00	4.48
Morbidity	13.5	14.4	15.7	11.8	6.71
Mortality, a,b	6.7	1.5	0	.8	1.38
a - linear effect of increasing peas in the diet (P<.05)
b - significant effect of peas (P<.05), 0% vs. 5, 10, and 20%
Flatt and Stanton, 2000

Implications

Peas have proven to be biologically and economically competitive as a protein and energy source for beef cattle. Peas can be included in creep feeds, growing and finishing diets, and for supplementing beef cows. The major determining factor in purchasing field peas for beef cattle is price comparison with other feedstuffs, based on respective nutrient content. Feeding home grown peas may reduce off-farm purchases for protein and enhance sustainability of cropping system(s).

Literature Cited

Anderson, V.L. 1998. Field peas in diets for growing heifers, backgrounding, and finishing steer calves. (Progress Report). NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center Beef and Bison Field Day Proceedings. Vol. 21. Pp 33-39.

Anderson, V.L. 1999a. Field peas in creep feed for beef calves. NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center Beef and Bison Field Day Proceedings. Vol. 22. Pp 1-4.

Anderson, V.L. 1999b. Field peas in diets for growing and finishing steer calves. NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center Beef and Bison Field Day Proceedings. Vol. 22. Pp 9-15.

Aguilera, J.F., M. Bustos, and E. Moline. 1992. The degradability of legume seed meals in the rumen: effect of heat treatment. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 36:101-112.

Aufrere, J., D. Graviou, and B. michalet-Doreau. 1994. Degradation in the rumen of proteins of 2 legumes: soybean meal and field pea. Reproduction, Nutrition, Development, Vol. 34:5, p483-490.

Birkelo, C.P., B.J. Johnson, and B.D. Rops. 2000. Field peas in finishing cattle diets and the effect of processing. http://www.abs.sdstate. edu/ars/beeftext/BeefReports/2000.

Bock, Eric. 2000. Effects of processing field peas in steer grower diets. NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center Beef and Bison Field Day Proceedings. Vol. 23. Pp 29-31.

Bock, Eric, and V.L. Anderson. 2001. Profi(v) vs. Integra(v) field pea for post-weaning growing diets. NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center Beef and Bison Field Day Proceedings. Vol. 24:1-2.

Flatt, W.R. and T.L. Stanton. 2000. Effects of Profi(v) peas, Pisum arvense, on growth, performance, and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle. Colorado State University Animal Science Department Report.

Landblom, D.G., W.W. Poland, and G.P. Lardy. 2000. Application of salt-limited pea/wheat midds creep diets in Southwestern North Dakota. North Dakota Cow/Calf Conference and Beef Cattle Range and Research Report. Pp 8-12.

Lindberg, J.E. 1981. The effect of basal diet on the ruminal degradation of dry matter, nitrogenous compounds and cell walls in nylon bags. Swedish J. Agric. Res. 11:159-169.

NRC. 1996. Nutrient Requirements of beef cattle. 7th Revised Edition. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

NRC. 1984. Nutrient Requirements of beef cattle. 6th Revised Edition. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

NRC. 1989. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 6th Revised Edition. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Poland, W.W. and D. Landblom. 1998. Feeding value of field pea and hull-less oat in growing calf diets. http:www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndagres/summer98/ar20898/Lardy

Reed, J.J., G.P. Lardy, T. C. Gilbery, M.L. Bauer, and J.S. Caton. 2002a. Effect of field pea level on intake, digestion, and ruminal fermentation in beef steers fed growing diets. J. Anim. Sci. 80(Suppl. 1):235 (Abstr.).

Reed, J.J, G.P. Lardy, T. C. Gilbery, M.L. Bauer, and J.S. Caton. 2002b. Effect of field pea supplementation on intake, digestion, and ruminal fermentation in beef steers fed forage based diets. J. Anim. Sci. 80(Suppl. 1):264 (Abstr.).

Schaeffer, A.N., A.M. Encinias, A.E. Radunz, G.P. Lardy, M.L. Bauer and J.S. Caton. 2000. Influence of field pea supplementation on intake and performance of gestating beef cows fed grass hay diets. North Dakota Cow/Calf Conference and Beef Cattle Range and Research Report. Pp 52-53.

Weiss, P., and F. Raymond. 1989. Utilisation du pois par les taurillons. Atout Pois. ITCF Eds./Paris. 1989.

• Introduction to Field Pea Blaine Schatz
• Field Peas in Dairy Cattle Diets J.W. Schroeder
• Field Pea in Swine Diets Doug Landblom
• Field Pea in Sheep Diets G.P. Lardy, M.L. Bauer, E.R. Loe
• Field Pea in Poultry Diets R.L. Harrold