Three experiments were conducted to determine the effect of increasing field pea level in high-concentrate finishing cattle diets on ADG, DMI, G:F, and carcass traits, and to estimate the NE of field pea. In Exp. 1, 118 yearling heifers (417.9 +/- 2.4 kg initial BW) were blocked by initial BW and assigned randomly to 1 of 4 treatments (0, 10, 20, or 30% dry-rolled field pea, DM basis; 4 pens/treatment). In Exp. 2, 143 beef steers (433 +/- 19 kg initial BW) were blocked by BW and assigned randomly to 1 of 4 treatments (0, 10, 20, or 30% dry-rolled field pea, DM basis; 6 pens/treatment). In Exp. 3, 80 beef steers (372.4 +/- 0.4 kg initial BW) were assigned randomly to 1 of 4 treatments (0, 18, 27, or 36% cracked field pea, DM basis; 4 pens/treatment). Field pea replaced a portion of the grain (dry-rolled and high moisture corn, dry-rolled corn, and barley and barley sprouts; Exp. 1, 2, and 3, respectively) and protein supplement. In Exp. 1, field pea inclusion decreased DMI linearly (P = 0.03), whereas ADG and G:F were not affected by treatment (P > or = 0.17); however, dietary NE(g) increased quadratically with increasing field pea level (P = 0.04). Fat thickness responded quadratically (P = 0.008) where heifers fed 20% field pea had greatest fat thickness and 30% field pea inclusion the least. Marbling tended (P < or = 0.09) to respond quadratically as field pea increased. No differences (P > or = 0.17) were observed for HCW, LM area, or KPH. In Exp. 2, DMI, ADG, G:F, dietary NE(g), HCW, marbling, LM area, 12th-rib fat, and USDA yield grade (YG) were unaffected by dietary field pea inclusion (P > or = 0.12). In Exp. 3, marbling score increased linearly (P = 0.05), fat thickness increased quadratically (P = 0.01), and YG tended to increase (P = 0.07) quadratically as field pea increased. Field pea inclusion did not affect (P > or = 0.38) DMI, ADG, G:F, dietary NE(g), HCW, or LM area. These results indicate that field pea can be included successfully into rations at levels up to 36% of DM without negatively affecting growth performance and most carcass characteristics of finishing beef cattle; however, effects on marbling score were variable. These data also indicate the energy content of field peas is similar to cereal grains, such as corn and barley, when included in high-concentrate finishing diets.

A.; Maddock, R. J.; Stamm, M. M.; Schauer, C. S.; Rush, Ivan G.; Quinn, S.; and Lardy, G. P., "Growing rate of gain on subsequent feedlot performance, meat, and carcass quality of beef steers" (2009 LG diet consisted of 52.5% barley silage, 39.0% whole shell corn, and 8.5% supplement, whereas the HG diet contained 43.9% barley silage, 47.4% whole shell corn, and 8.7% supplement (DM basis). Initial BW (226 kg) was not different (P = 0.70) between treatments. Steers fed the HG diet had increased ADG (1.67 vs. 1.40 kg/d; P < 0.001) compared with steers fed LG diet. Dry matter intake was greater (9.49 vs. 8.35 kg/d; P < 0.001) for steers fed the HG vs. LG diet. Total backgrounding cost ($/animal) was less (P < 0.001) for those steers fed LG diet compared with HG diet ($126.00 vs. $140.35, respectively); however, total cost per kilogram of BW gain was not different (P = 0.24; $0.485/kg of BW gain). After the backgrounding period, steers were fed a common finishing diet for 135 d. During the finishing period, LG steers had similar (P = 0.12; 10.73 vs. 10.35 kg/d) DMI compared with those fed HG diets; however, ADG was not different (1.55 kg; P = 0.72) among treatments. Hot carcass weight, marbling score, 12th-rib fat, LM area, and USDA yield grade were not different (P > 0.12) between treatments and averaged 363 kg, Sm 30 , 1.33 cm, 83.8 cm 2 , and 2.7, respectively. There were no differences (P = 0.77; 3.63 ± 0.12 kg) in WBSF tenderness of rib-eye steaks. Percent cooking loss was increased in LG diets (P = 0.017). No differences were observed in consumer sensory analysis of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor intensity (P ≥ 0.276; 5.43 ± 0.12, 5.07 ± 0.13, and 5.17 ± 0.05, respectively). These data suggest that feeding steers diets that differ in energy concentration and result in ADG of 1.4 and 1.7 kg/d during the growing period results in minimal changes in subsequent finishing performance and does not affect meat quality.