Skip to main content

Nutritive Value of Feeds for Beef Cattle

Animals require consumption of chemical elements and compounds to sustain bodily functions, for skeletal and tissue growth, and to support the reproductive process. The necessary chemical elements and compounds are referred to as nutrients and can be classified into six categories: water, carbohydrates, lipids or fats, proteins, minerals, and vitamins. The objective of feed evaluation is to provide a rapid and economical method to determine the nutrients available (nutritional value) in a feed. For well over 100 years, the proximate analysis system has been used to describe the chemical composition of feeds. Components of proximate analysis are shown in Figure 1.

 

Figure 1. Nutrient concentrations of feed determined from proximate analysis.

 

Figure 1. Nutrient concentrations of feed determined from proximate analysis.

 

 

 

Nutritional value is determined by nutrient concentration and nutrient digestibility. Proximate analysis is one method used to determine nutrient concentration, although very little information about nutrient digestibility is gained. True nutrient digestibility information is determined using digestion trials, but it is not practical to test digestibility on all feeds. Therefore, previous digestibility information from similar feeds and previous relationships between digestibility and some nutrient concentration measures is commonly used to estimate digestibility. Table 1 contains average nutrient concentration values for numerous feeds that are common in Oklahoma. Values in the table represent averages from numerous different sources, such as the National Research Council’s Nutrient Requirements of Beef and Dairy Cattle publications, commercial laboratories, research trials, and other publications. Beef magazine also publishes a Feed Composition Guide that is updated annually. The 2008 guide can be found at http://beefmagazine.com/images/2008_feed_comp_cattle_sheep.html.

 

Producers must recognize that values published in any table are merely typical averages and that variation among grains, oilseeds, byproducts, and in particular forages and roughages can be extreme. Furthermore, various processing methods may also alter the digestibility. For this reason, producers are advised to have their feeds and forages tested for nutrient composition by commercial laboratories. To improve quality control and standardization among commercial laboratories, the National Forage Testing Association (NFTA), found at http://www.foragetesting.org, provides a unique certification service. At this Web site, one can also view the NFTA’s recommendations for laboratory procedures and equations for use in predicting energy availability for different forage types. One of the primary decisions you will have to make is to have a Near Infrared Reflectance Spectrophotometer (NIRS) or wet chemistry.  Generally NIRS is less costly as it estimates wet chemistry values by bouncing light through samples. With this type of analysis, the lab should have a list of types of feed samples that they can analyze by this method. For instance, most labs can perform quality NIRS analysis on alfalfa samples. For samples that the lab does not specify they have NIRS capabilities, you should consider having wet chemistry analysis completed.

 

Dry Matter

Dry matter (DM) expresses the proportion of the feed that is not water. The moisture concentration is determined by weighing the feed sample soon after the sample has been collected. Next, the sample is placed in a drying oven until all of the water has been evaporated. Finally, the dried sample is weighed again and the DM content is calculated by difference. Other than physical characteristics of the feed, moisture content has little to no bearing on the availability of nutrients within that feed.

 

Dry matter is an extremely variable component among and within types of feeds. Fresh forages, silages and wet byproduct feeds are likely to vary the most in DM content. Some silages and byproduct feeds contain as little as 25 percent DM (75 percent moisture). A good rule of thumb is that dry feeds should contain no more than about 12 percent moisture for safe storage in overhead bins.

 

Fiber

The original proximate analysis system separated carbohydrates into crude fiber and nitrogen free extract (NFE) fractions. The crude fiber portion of the feedstuff was intended to represent the indigestible fiber fraction and NFE was supposed to represent the more readily digestible carbohydrates, such as sugars and starches. However, it was soon discovered that this system had serious limitations, particularly for fibrous feeds like forages.

 

Because of the wide variation in chemical analyses for crude fiber and NFE, a new system called the detergent fiber system was developed, which better reflects true carbohydrate digestibility in ruminants (Figure 2). The neutral detergent solubles (NDS) fraction is comprised of cell contents that are nearly 100% digestible. The neutral detergent insoluble fiber (NDF) fraction is made up of primarily cell wall tissue, which consists of hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin. The NDF fraction also contains small amounts of silica and fiber-bound or heat-damaged protein. The NDF fraction of feeds and forages is quite variable in digestibility. Using an acid solution, the NDF residue can be further separated into acid detergent solubles (ADS; primarily hemicellulose) and acid detergent insoluble fiber (Figure 3). The acid detergent insoluble fiber fraction contains cellulose, which has variable digestibility, and lignin, which is nearly indigestible.

 

With purchased feeds that come with a feed tag, crude fiber is the only fiber analysis that is required. Unfortunately, this provides little assistance in determining the nutrient value or digestibility of the feed. However, it may be possible for your feed representative to provide you with NDF and ADF values. NDF concentration is highly inversely related to the amount of the feed the cattle will eat. Because digestibility of fiber is proportional to the amount of lignin in the plant material, ADF is inversely related to the digestibility of feed ingredients. This relationship explains why some forages and feeds contain high NDF concentrations, but remain high in digestibility, while others may contain moderate or low NDF concentrations, yet are low in digestible energy.

 

 The detergent fiber system.

 

Figure 2. The detergent fiber system.

 

 

 

 

 

 Fiber fractions in the detergent fiber system.

 

 

Figure 3. Fiber fractions in the detergent fiber system.

 

 

 

 

 

Effective NDF

The effective NDF (eNDF) value shown in Table 1 is a measure of the feed NDF that is effective in stimulating rumen motility or churning. The layman term for eNDF is the scratch value of the feed. If the rumen stops churning, acidic gasses build up causing the pH to drop. The result is bloat, acidosis, and/or founder, as well as reduced diet digestibility. The table expresses eNDF as a percentage of NDF. This value is determined by several factors including particle size, density, hydration, and degree of lignification. To maintain optimal forage digestion, the diet should contain a minimum of 20 percent eNDF on a DM basis.

 

The relationship of effective NDF and rumen pH.

 

Figure 4. The relationship of effective NDF and rumen pH.

 

 

 

 

 

Protein

Protein values in the Table 1 reflect CP, which is simply nitrogen concentration multiplied by 6.25. The degradable intake protein (DIP) column is an estimate of the proportion of the crude protein that is actually degradable in the rumen and is expressed as a percentage of CP. Undegradable protein (percent of CP) can be calculated by subtracting the DIP value from one hundred.

 

Feed Energy Values

Feed energy values are expressed on a DM basis as percent total digestible nutrients (TDN), net energy for maintenance (NEm), and net energy for gain (NEg) units (mega calories per 100 lbs of feed). TDN is determined by carrying out a digestion trial and summing the digestible protein and carbohydrates plus 2.25 times digestible ether extract. Ether extract (EE) is the fat or lipid portion of the feed. The net energy system is generally thought to be more precise in estimating the energy value of feeds, particularly roughages. The net energy of feed is the portion that is available to the animal for maintenance or various productive purposes. The portion used for maintenance (NEm) is used for muscular work, maintenance and repair of tissues, maintaining a stable body temperature, and other body functions. Most of this energy that was digested will leave the animal’s body as heat. The energy that is used for productive purposes (NEg) may be recovered as growth through retaining energy in tissues. Energy for productive purposes is less efficient than energy used for maintenance. Milk production is unique because its energy efficiency is similar to maintenance uses.

 

Minerals

Minerals that are needed by animals in larger quantities are referred to as macro minerals. These minerals are shown in Table 1 and feed concentration is expressed on a percent of DM basis. Minerals that are needed by animals in much smaller quantities are referred to as micro minerals and feed concentration is expressed in parts per million (ppm) in the table. To convert ppm to percent, simply move the decimal place four places to the left. For example, if a feed contained 12 ppm copper, the copper concentration expressed as a percentage would be 0.0012 percent.

 

Conclusion

Producers have to ensure that their animals’ diets include the proper balance of the six essential nutrients in a physical form that maintains digestive system health and function. To accomplish this, producers must have good knowledge of available feed nutrient composition, physical and digestive characteristics, and the animal’s nutrient requirements.

 

Nutrient concentration and digestibility data can be determined by using digestion trials or measuring chemical composition and applying this information to estimate digestibility. It is imperative that producers recognize that values published in any table are merely averages and that variation among feed commodities, oilseeds, and in particular forages and roughages can be extreme. For this reason, producers are advised to have their feeds and forages tested for nutrient composition by commercial laboratories.

 

References

2008 Feed Composition Guide. (2008) Beef. Retrieved from http:// at http://beefmagazine.com/images/2008_feed_comp_cattle_sheep.html

 

NRC. (2000) Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle (7th Edition). National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

 

 Table 1. Typical composition of feeds and forages. 

 Typical composition of roughage (part 1)
Feed Type of Feed Dry Matter % NDF % eNDFa % of NDF CP %
 1  Alfalfa Hay, Early Bloom  90  39  92  25
2 Alfalfa Hay, Mid Bloom  90  47  92  22
3 Alfalfa Hay, Full Bloom  90  49  92  17
4 Alfalfa Cubes  91  46  40  18
5 Alfalfa Dehydrated 17% CP  92  45  6  19
6 Bermuda Hay, Vegetative  90 69   80  15
7 Bermuda Hay, Early Bloom  90  75  90  10
8 Bermuda Hay, Full Bloom  90  79  98  8
9 Corn Silage  35  46  70  8
10 Cotton Seed Hulls  90  87  100  4
11 Fescue Hay, Early Bloom  87  68  98  13
12 Fescue Hay, Full Bloom  88  73  98
13 Peanut Hulls  91  74  98  8
14 Prairie Hay  91  73  98
15 Rice Hulls  92  81  90  3
16 Sorghum Silage  32  59  70  9
17 Sudan Grass Silage  31  64  61  10
18 Sunflower Seed Hulls  90  73  90  4
19 Wheat Silage  33  62  61  13
20   Wheat Straw  91  81  98  3
21   Wheat Straw, Ammoniated  85  76  98  9
           
 Typical composition of roughage (part 2)
Feed Type of Feed DIPb % of CP TDN % NEm Mcal/cwt NEg Mcal/cwt
 1  Alfalfa Hay, Early Bloom  88  60  59  33
2 Alfalfa Hay, Mid Bloom  84  58  56  31
3 Alfalfa Hay, Full Bloom  82  55  52  26
4 Alfalfa Cubes  70  57  55  29
5 Alfalfa Dehydrated 17% CP  41  61  61  35
6 Bermuda Hay, Vegetative  80  57  55  29
7 Bermuda Hay, Early Bloom  72  53 49  24
8 Bermuda Hay, Full Bloom  68  47  39  15
9 Corn Silage  72  72  77  49
10 Cotton Seed Hulls  55 45   45  3
11 Fescue Hay, Early Bloom  72  57  55  29
12 Fescue Hay, Full Bloom  68  50  52  16
13 Peanut Hulls  40  22  36  0
14 Prairie Hay  63  52  50  12
15 Rice Hulls  45  13  35  0
16 Sorghum Silage  71  59  58  32
17 Sudan Grass Silage  72  58  56  31
18 Sunflower Seed Hulls  35  40  42  0
19 Wheat Silage  79  59  58  32
20   Wheat Straw  40  42  43  0
21   Wheat Straw, Ammoniated  75  50  50  12
           
 Typical composition of roughage (part 3)
Feed Type of Feed EE % Ca % % %
 1  Alfalfa Hay, Early Bloom  2.5  1.41  0.22  2.51
2 Alfalfa Hay, Mid Bloom  2.6  1.37  0.22  1.56
3 Alfalfa Hay, Full Bloom  2.3  1.19  0.24  1.56
4 Alfalfa Cubes  2  1.3  0.23  1.9
5 Alfalfa Dehydrated 17% CP  3  1.42  0.25  2.5
6 Bermuda Hay, Vegetative  2.3  0.59  0.28  1.9
7 Bermuda Hay, Early Bloom  1.9  0.51  0.2  1.6
8 Bermuda Hay, Full Bloom 1.8   0.43  0.18  1.4
9 Corn Silage  3.1  0.28  0.23  1.1
10 Cotton Seed Hulls  1.9  0.15  0.09  1.1
11 Fescue Hay, Early Bloom  4.8  0.45  0.37  2.5
12 Fescue Hay, Full Bloom  3.5  0.4 0.26   1.7
13 Peanut Hulls  1.5  0.2  0.07  0.9
14 Prairie Hay  2  0.4  0.15  1.1
15 Rice Hulls  0.9  0.14  0.07  0.5
16 Sorghum Silage  2.7  0.49  0.22  1.72
17 Sudan Grass Silage  3  0.58  0.27  2.4
18 Sunflower Seed Hulls  2.2  0  0.11  0.2
19 Wheat Silage  3.2  0.4  0.28  2.1
20   Wheat Straw  1.8  0.16  0.05  1.3
21   Wheat Straw, Ammoniated  1.5  0.15  0.05  1.3
           
 Typical composition of roughage (part 4)
Feed Type of Feed % Cu ppm Mn ppm Zn ppm
 1  Alfalfa Hay, Early Bloom  0.3  13  36  30
2 Alfalfa Hay, Mid Bloom  0.28  11  28  31
3 Alfalfa Hay, Full Bloom  0.27  10  28  26
4 Alfalfa Cubes  0.35  9  32  18
5 Alfalfa Dehydrated 17% CP  0.24  9  34  21
6 Bermuda Hay, Vegetative  0.3  12  170  36
7 Bermuda Hay, Early Bloom  0.25  8  140  31
8 Bermuda Hay, Full Bloom  0.21  8  110  26
9 Corn Silage  0.12  4  24  22
10 Cotton Seed Hulls  0.05  13  119  10
11 Fescue Hay, Early Bloom  0.21  11  200  34
12 Fescue Hay, Full Bloom  0.17  7  100  23
13 Peanut Hulls  0.07  11  38  20
14 Prairie Hay  0.06  4  59  34
15 Rice Hulls  0.08  3  320  24
16 Sorghum Silage  0.12  9  69  30
17 Sudan Grass Silage  0.14  37  99  29
18 Sunflower Seed Hulls  0.19      200
19 Wheat Silage  0.21  9  80  27
20   Wheat Straw  0.17  5  35  6
21   Wheat Straw, Ammoniated  0.16  5  35  6
           

 

 

 Typical composition of grazed forage
Feed Type of Feed Dry Matter % NDF % eNDFa % of NDF CP %
 27  Bermuda, Vegetative  30  68  80  16
28 Bermuda, Boot Stage  35  72  100  13
29 Bermuda, Fall, Mature  80  77  100
30 Bermuda, Winter, Mature  90  80  100  5
31 Bermuda, Stockpiled, Sept.-Oct  35  70  100  13
32 Bermuda, Stockpiled, Nov.-Dec.  85  74  100  11
33 Bermuda, Stockpiled, Jan.-Feb.  90  77  100  7
34 Fescue, Vegetative  29  60  40  18
35 Fescue, Boot Stage  33  65  100  12
36 Fescue, Mature  70  74  100  8
37 Fescue, Stockpiled, Nov.-Dec.  40  72  100  13
38 Fescue, Stockpiled, Jan.-Feb.  60 75   100  11
39 Native Range, April-June  30  68  100  14
40 Native Range, July-August  35  71  100  10
41 Native Range, Sept.-Oct.  46  75  100  7
42 Native Range, Nov.-Dec.  75  78  100
43   Native Range, Jan.-March  85  80  100  4
44   Wheat Forage, Vegetative  21  50  41 22 
           
 Typical composition of grazed forage
Feed Type of Feed DIPb % of CP TDN % NEm Mcal/cwt NEg Mcal/cwt
 27  Bermuda, Vegetative  85  65  67  40
28 Bermuda, Boot Stage  75  60  59  33
29 Bermuda, Fall, Mature  60  48  41  16
30 Bermuda, Winter, Mature  55  44  34  10
31 Bermuda, Stockpiled, Sept.-Oct  70  57  55  29
32 Bermuda, Stockpiled, Nov.-Dec.  65  54  50  25
33 Bermuda, Stockpiled, Jan.-Feb.  60  47  39  15
34 Fescue, Vegetative  80  64  65  39
35 Fescue, Boot Stage  75  57  55  29
36 Fescue, Mature  70  49  42  18
37 Fescue, Stockpiled, Nov.-Dec.  75  52  47  22
38 Fescue, Stockpiled, Jan.-Feb.  68  40  27  3
39 Native Range, April-June  75  70  74  47
40 Native Range, July-August  70  64  65  39
41 Native Range, Sept.-Oct.  65  59  58  32
42 Native Range, Nov.-Dec.  65  55  52  26
43   Native Range, Jan.-March  55  49  42  18
44   Wheat Forage, Vegetative  84  71 76   48
           
 Typical composition of grazed forage
Feed Type of Feed EE % Ca % P % K %
 27  Bermuda, Vegetative  3  0.46  0.31  1.9
28 Bermuda, Boot Stage  2.7  0.59  0.28  1.9
29 Bermuda, Fall, Mature  2.1  0.26  0.18  1.3
30 Bermuda, Winter, Mature  1.5  0.3  0.15  1
31 Bermuda, Stockpiled, Sept.-Oct  2.5  0.66  0.24  0.88
32 Bermuda, Stockpiled, Nov.-Dec.  2.1  0.52  0.22  0.55
33 Bermuda, Stockpiled, Jan.-Feb.  1.5  0.48  0.18  0.32
34 Fescue, Vegetative  4.5  0.5  0.4  2.5
35 Fescue, Boot Stage  3.8  0.45  0.3  1.8
36 Fescue, Mature  3.2  0.38  0.2  1.4
37 Fescue, Stockpiled, Nov.-Dec.  2.7  0.45  0.3  1.8
38 Fescue, Stockpiled, Jan.-Feb.  2.2  0.38  0.2  1.4
39 Native Range, April-June  3.2  0.3  0.2  1.6
40 Native Range, July-August  0.33  0.15  1.5
41 Native Range, Sept.-Oct.  2.5  0.28  0.12  1.1
42 Native Range, Nov.-Dec.  2.2  0.25  0.09  0.8
43   Native Range, Jan.-March  1.7  0.23  0.07  0.6
44   Wheat Forage, Vegetative  4  0.35  0.36  3.1
           
 Typical composition of grazed forage
Feed Type of Feed S % CU ppm Mn ppm Zn ppm
 27  Bermuda, Vegetative  0.33  13  185  32
28 Bermuda, Boot Stage  0.3  12  160  36
29 Bermuda, Fall, Mature  0.21  9  140  20
30 Bermuda, Winter, Mature  0.15  7  45  15
31 Bermuda, Stockpiled, Sept.-Oct  0.26  6  151  27
32 Bermuda, Stockpiled, Nov.-Dec.  0.27  5  117  26
33 Bermuda, Stockpiled, Jan.-Feb.  0.25  4  116  26
34 Fescue, Vegetative  0.24  13  175  36
35 Fescue, Boot Stage  0.21  10  150  32
36 Fescue, Mature  0.18  7  120  26
37 Fescue, Stockpiled, Nov.-Dec.  0.21  12  150  32
38 Fescue, Stockpiled, Jan.-Feb.  0.18  7  120  26
39 Native Range, April-June  0.15  11    
40 Native Range, July-August        
41 Native Range, Sept.-Oct.        
42 Native Range, Nov.-Dec.        
43   Native Range, Jan.-March        
44   Wheat Forage, Vegetative  0.22  10 85   35
           

 

 

 Typical composition of byproduct feeds
Feed Type of Feed Dry Matter % NDF % eNDFa % of NDF CP %
 47  Barley Malt Pellets with Hulls  90  50  34  18
48 Corn Gluten Feed  90  40  36  24
49 Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn  89  33  4  31
50 Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn, Sorghum  92  46  4  31
51 Grain Screenings  90  23    14
52 Rice Bran, Full Fat  91  60 0  14
53 Rice Mill Byproduct  91  64 0  7
54 Soybean Hulls  90  46 28  12
55 Wheat Bran  89  46 4  17
56 Wheat Middlings  89  36  2  19
57    Wheat Mill Run  90  37  0  17
58    Wheat Shorts  89 30   0  20
           
 Typical composition of byproduct feeds
Feed Type of Feed Dry Matter % NDF % eNDFa % of NDF CP %
 47  Barley Malt Pellets with Hulls  64  68  71  44
48 Corn Gluten Feed  75  80  88 59 
49 Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn 33   89  100  69
50 Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn, Sorghum  47  88  99  68
51 Grain Screenings  65  65  67  40
52 Rice Bran, Full Fat  70  72  77  49
53 Rice Mill Byproduct  60  42  43  0
54 Soybean Hulls  72  77  84  55
55 Wheat Bran  72  70  74  47
56 Wheat Middlings  78  79  87  58
57    Wheat Mill Run  72  75  81  53
58    Wheat Shorts  75  80  88  59
           
 Typical composition of byproduct feeds
Feed Type of Feed Dry Matter % NDF % eNDFa % of NDF CP %
 47  Barley Malt Pellets with Hulls  1.9 0.21   0.59 1.2 
48 Corn Gluten Feed  3.2  0.14  1.07  1.5
49 Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn  13  0.07  0.87  1.1
50 Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn, Sorghum  10  0.25  0.65  0.5
51 Grain Screenings  5.5  0.25  0.34  
52 Rice Bran, Full Fat  19  0.66  1.7  1.8
53 Rice Mill Byproduct  5.7  0.4  0.31  2.2
54 Soybean Hulls  2.6  0.53  0.18  1.4
55 Wheat Bran  4.5  0.13  1.29  1.4
56 Wheat Middlings  4.6  0.15  1  1.4
57    Wheat Mill Run  4.4  0.12  1  1.2
58    Wheat Shorts  5.4  0.1  0.95  1.1
           
 Typical composition of byproduct feeds
Feed Type of Feed Dry Matter % NDF % eNDFa % of NDF CP %
 47  Barley Malt Pellets with Hulls  0.32  10  44  61
48 Corn Gluten Feed  0.53  7  22  67
49 Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn  0.65  5  21  68
50 Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn, Sorghum  0.4      68
51 Grain Screenings        30
52 Rice Bran, Full Fat  0.19  12  396 40 
53 Rice Mill Byproduct  0.3      31
54 Soybean Hulls  0.12  18  10  38
55 Wheat Bran  0.24  14    96
56 Wheat Middlings  0.24  11  128  96
57    Wheat Mill Run  0.22  21    90
58    Wheat Shorts  0.2  13    118
           

 

 

 Typical composition of feed grains
Feed Type of Feed Dry Matter % NDF % eNDFa % of NDF CP %
 64  Corn Grain, Cracked, Rolled, or Ground  88  9  60  10
65  Corn Grain, Steam Flaked  85  9  40  10
66  Wheat  89  12  0  14
 67  Milo, Ground  89  16  5  11
 68  Milo, Steam Flaked  82  20  38  11
           
 Typical composition of feed grains
Feed Type of Feed DIPb % of CP TDN % NEm Mcal/cwt NEg Mcal/cwt
 64  Corn Grain, Cracked, Rolled, or Ground 42   88  99  68
65  Corn Grain, Steam Flaked  41  93  106  74
66  Wheat  77  89  100  69
 67  Milo, Ground  45  82  91  61
 68  Milo, Steam Flaked  38  90  102  70
           
 Typical composition of feed grains
Feed Type of Feed EE % Ca % P % K %
 64  Corn Grain, Cracked, Rolled, or Ground  4.3  0.02  0.3  0.4
65  Corn Grain, Steam Flaked  4.1  0.02  0.27  0.4
66  Wheat  2.3  0.05  0.44  0.4
 67  Milo, Ground  3.1  0.04  0.32  0.4
 68  Milo, Steam Flaked  3.1  0.04  0.28  0.4
           
 Typical composition of feed grains
Feed Type of Feed S % Cu ppm MN ppm Zn ppm
 64  Corn Grain, Cracked, Rolled, or Ground 0.12  3  8  18
65  Corn Grain, Steam Flaked  0.12  3  8  18
66  Wheat  0.14  6  37  40
 67  Milo, Ground  0.14  5  15  18
 68  Milo, Steam Flaked  0.14  5  15  18
           

 

 Typical composition of high protein meals and seeds
Feed Type of Feed Dry Matter % NDF % eNDFa % of NDF CP %
 69   Cottonseed, Whole  91  47  100  23
70  Cottonseed Meal, 41%  90 25   23  48
71  Peanut Meal, Solvent  91  27  23  50
72  Soybean Meal, 48%  91  9  23 54 
73   Soybeans, Whole  88  15  100  40
74  Sunflower Seed Meal, Solvent  91  24  80  19
75  Sunflower Seed Meal with Hulls  91  40  23  26
 76  Mung Beans  90      23
 77  Feather Meal  92  44  23  86
           
 Typical composition of high protein meals and seeds
Feed Type of Feed DIPb % of CP TDN % NEm Mcal/cwt NEg Mcal/cwt
 69   Cottonseed, Whole  62  95  108  76
70  Cottonseed Meal, 41%  58  77  84  55
71  Peanut Meal, Solvent  73  77  84  55
72  Soybean Meal, 48%  64  87  98  67
73   Soybeans, Whole  72  93  106  74
74  Sunflower Seed Meal, Solvent 75   122  142  103
75  Sunflower Seed Meal with Hulls  80  60  68  42
 76  Mung Beans  25  79  87  58
 77  Feather Meal  27  69  73  45
           
 Typical composition of high protein meals and seeds
Feed Type of Feed EE % Ca % P % K %
 69   Cottonseed, Whole  17.8  0.16  0.62  1.22
70  Cottonseed Meal, 41%  1.8  0.22  1.25  1.7
71  Peanut Meal, Solvent  3.6  0.24  0.58  1
72  Soybean Meal, 48%  12  0.28  0.71  2.2
73   Soybeans, Whole  18.8  0.27 0.64   2
74  Sunflower Seed Meal, Solvent  42  0.71  0.51  1.06
75  Sunflower Seed Meal with Hulls  2.9  0.45  1.02  1.27
 76  Mung Beans   1.19   0.68  1.4
 77  Feather Meal  6.5  0.6  0.62  0.2
           
 Typical composition of high protein meals and seeds
Feed Type of Feed S % Cu ppm Mn ppm Zn ppm
 69   Cottonseed, Whole  0.26  8  12  38
70  Cottonseed Meal, 41% 0.44   17  57  66
71  Peanut Meal, Solvent  0.3  16  29  38
72  Soybean Meal, 48%  0.47  23  41  61
73   Soybeans, Whole 0.34   15  35  59
74  Sunflower Seed Meal, Solvent  0.21  20  35  53
75  Sunflower Seed Meal with Hulls  0.33  4  20  105
 76  Mung Beans  0.25      
 77  Feather Meal  1.85  14  12  95
           

a Effective neutral detergent insoluble fiber.

b Degradable intake protein.

 

 

Was this information helpful?
YESNO
Fact Sheet
An Introduction to Finishing Beef

Producers will learn realistic expectations and strategies for finishing beef cattle by considering the animal’s health, nutrition and available technologies.

Beef CattleCow-CalfLivestockReceiving & FeedlotStocker Cattle
Fact Sheet
Cow-Calf Standardized Performance Analysis (SPA)

Key components of and the performance statistics generated by cow-calf SPA Software and their application in making decisions within the IRM framework.

Beef CattleCow-CalfLivestock
Fact Sheet
Regulatory Landscape for the Direct Marketing of Meat and Poultry in Oklahoma

Owners of livestock and poultry in Oklahoma may have interest in marketing their animals, a portion of their animals or the meat/poultry from those animals directly to consumers. To accomplish this, the animals must be slaughtered and processed and prepared as finished meat/poultry cuts. There are four basic regulatory avenues for the direct marketing of meat/poultry, and each category has respective specifications and limitations within.

Beef CattleFood ProcessingFood ProductsLivestockPackaging & LabelingPigs, Hogs, SwinePoultryRegulations, Customer Requirements & Compliance
VIEW ALL
Back To Top