Field pea (Pisum sativum) inclusion in corn-based lamb finishing diets

Abstract

Two hundred crossbred lambs were used to determine energy value and optimum inclusion level of field pea (Pisum sativum) in corn-based diets. In experiment one (Exp. 1), 100 crossbred lambs (33.9 ± 1.3 kg initial BW) were blocked by weight and sex (two blocks of ewe lambs per treatment; three blocks of ram lambs per treatment) and fed for 89 days. In experiment two (Exp. 2), 100 crossbred ram lambs (39.1 ± 0.2 kg initial BW) were blocked by weight (five pens per treatment) and fed for 63 days. Treatments for each experiment were similar; field pea replaced corn at 0, 150, 300, or 450 g/kg of the diet (DM basis). Diets contained 750 g/kg corn and/or field pea, 100 g/kg alfalfa hay, 50 g/kg concentrated separator byproduct (CSB), 60 g/kg soybean meal (SBM), and 40 g/kg supplement. In Exp. 2, a fifth treatment was added to evaluate if field pea can replace corn and SBM in high-grain diets (450 − SBM); this diet consisted of 450 g/kg field pea, 350 g/kg corn, 100 g/kg alfalfa, 50 g/kg CSB, and 50 g/kg supplement. Diets contained 28 mg/kg lasalocid and a minimum 149.6 g/kg CP, 7.6 g/kg Ca, 4.4 g/kg P, and 12.2 g/kg K. Only carcass data from ram lambs were recorded. Data for each experiment were analyzed separately with GLM procedure of SAS and linear, quadratic, and cubic effects of field pea were determined. In Exp. 1, a cubic (P = 0.02) response for DMI occurred, greater intake of 150 g/kg than 300 g/kg diet. No other performance measurements were affected by treatment. In Exp. 2, lambs fed 450 − SBM tended to be more efficient (P = 0.10) than lambs fed 450 + SBM. Carcass characteristics were not affected by treatment (P > 0.10). Based on lamb performance (Exp. 1) there was a tendency for a linear (P = 0.10) increase in dietary net energy. In Exp. 2, no difference in dietary net energy occurred with increasing level of field pea. Dietary net energy was greater for 450 − SBM compared with 450 + SBM. Average calculated NE m and NE g for field pea were 2.75 and 2.02 Mcal/kg, which was 14% greater than corn. Field pea is a suitable replacement for corn in lamb finishing diets and is at least equal in energy density to corn.

Feeding value of field pea as a protein source in forage-based diets fed to beef cattle1

“…The starch coûtent of barley used for the calculation was 65% (NRC, 1996). This value is very similar to that of field pea (47%; Loe et al, 2004). Likewise, CP is similar between both treatments (21.4 and 19.9% for field pea and BCM1360, respectively; Table 2).…”

“…Less severe effects of field pea on forage iutake were expected than those observed with barley (Boyles et al, 1998;Lardy et al, 2004) or corn (Chase and Hibberd, 1987;Sansón et al, 1990;Pordomiugo et al, 1991) supplementation, because field peas have moderate starch content and relatively high CP (47% starch and 21% CP; Loe et al, 2004). Forage intake was expected to be similar between FP1360 aud BCM1360 because the same amount was fed and they had similar starch and CP content.…”

The effects of legume seeds on the lactation performance of dairy cows fed grass silage-based diets

“…Field pea is one of the most important legume seeds for organic farming (Khalili et al 2002). Field peas have high ruminal protein degradability, high energy value, but have rather low crude protein (CP) content (Loe et al 2004). Alternatively, field bean (FB) is higher in CP (Luke 2017).…”

Legume grain-based supplements in dairy sheep diet: effects on milk yield, composition and fatty acid profile

“…Studies on the use of legume grains as alternative protein sources for sheep have largely been related to meat production (Vasta et al 2008), and have shown partial or total replacement of soybean with chickpea (Hadjipanayiotou 2002;Christodoulou et al 2005), faba bean (Lanza et al 1999;Antongiovanni et al 2002;Lanza et al 2011), and pea (Lanza et al , 2011Loe et al 2004). These protein sources have no adverse effects on lamb growth rate or on carcass and meat characteristics, and are able to increase the amount of omega-3 fatty acids (FA) in the intramuscular fat Lanza et al 2011;Scerra et al 2011).…”