Beef Magazine 2017 Feed Composition Tables

Nutritive Value of Feeds for Beef Cattle

By David Lalman

Jump To:
• Dry Thing
• Cobweb
• Effective NDF
• Poly peptide
• Feed Energy Values
• Minerals
• Conclusion

Animals require consumption of chemic elements and compounds to sustain bodily functions, for skeletal and tissue growth, and to support the reproductive procedure. The necessary chemical elements and compounds are referred to as nutrients and can exist classified into six categories: h2o, 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 organisation has been used to describe the chemical limerick of feeds. Components of proximate analysis are shown in Figure i.

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

Nutritional value is adamant by nutrient concentration and nutrient digestibility. Proximate analysis is ane method used to decide nutrient concentration, although very lilliputian information nigh nutrient digestibility is gained. Truthful nutrient digestibility data is determined using digestion trials, but it is not practical to exam digestibility on all feeds. Therefore, previous digestibility information from similar feeds and previous relationships between digestibility and some nutrient concentration measures is ordinarily used to estimate digestibility. Tabular array 1 contains average nutrient concentration values for numerous feeds that are common in Oklahoma. Values in the tabular array correspond averages from numerous dissimilar sources, such as the National Research Council's Food Requirements of Beef and Dairy Cattle publications, commercial laboratories, enquiry trials, and other publications. Beef magazine besides publishes a Feed Limerick 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 amid grains, oilseeds, byproducts, and in item forages and roughages can exist farthermost. 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 past commercial laboratories. To improve quality command and standardization amongst commercial laboratories, the National Forage Testing Association (NFTA), found at http://www.foragetesting.org, provides a unique certification service. At this Web site, 1 tin can also view the NFTA's recommendations for laboratory procedures and equations for use in predicting energy availability for different fodder types. One of the primary decisions y'all will have to make is to take a Most Infrared Reflectance Spectrophotometer (NIRS) or wet chemistry.  Generally NIRS is less plush as it estimates wet chemical science values by bouncing low-cal through samples. With this type of assay, the lab should accept a listing of types of feed samples that they can clarify past 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 assay 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 before long 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 past deviation. Other than physical characteristics of the feed, moisture content has niggling to no begetting on the availability of nutrients within that feed.

Dry thing 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 piddling every bit 25 percent DM (75 percent wet). A good rule of pollex is that dry feeds should comprise no more than about 12 percent moisture for rubber storage in overhead bins.

Cobweb

The original proximate analysis system separated carbohydrates into rough fiber and nitrogen free excerpt (NFE) fractions. The rough fiber portion of the feedstuff was intended to represent the boxy fiber fraction and NFE was supposed to correspond the more readily digestible carbohydrates, such as sugars and starches. However, it was before long discovered that this organisation had serious limitations, specially for gristly feeds like forages.

Considering of the wide variation in chemical analyses for crude fiber and NFE, a new system called the detergent fiber system was adult, which improve reflects true saccharide digestibility in ruminants (Figure 2). The neutral detergent solubles (NDS) fraction is comprised of cell contents that are almost 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 pocket-size amounts of silica and fiber-jump or heat-damaged protein. The NDF fraction of feeds and forages is quite variable in digestibility. Using an acid solution, the NDF residue can exist further separated into acid detergent solubles (ADS; primarily hemicellulose) and acrid detergent insoluble fiber (Figure 3). The acid detergent insoluble cobweb fraction contains cellulose, which has variable digestibility, and lignin, which is nearly indigestible.

With purchased feeds that come with a feed tag, rough fiber is the only fiber analysis that is required. Unfortunately, this provides niggling assistance in determining the food value or digestibility of the feed. However, information technology may be possible for your feed representative to provide you lot with NDF and ADF values. NDF concentration is highly inversely related to the amount of the feed the cattle will swallow. Because digestibility of fiber is proportional to the corporeality of lignin in the constitute textile, ADF is inversely related to the digestibility of feed ingredients. This relationship explains why some forages and feeds contain high NDF concentrations, merely remain high in digestibility, while others may contain moderate or low NDF concentrations, nevertheless are low in digestible energy.

Effigy two. The detergent fiber system.

Effigy 3. Cobweb fractions in the detergent fiber organisation.

Effective NDF

The constructive NDF (eNDF) value shown in Table 1 is a measure out of the feed NDF that is effective in stimulating rumen movement or churning. The layman term for eNDF is the scratch value of the feed. If the rumen stops churning, acidic gasses build upwards causing the pH to drib. The result is bloat, acidosis, and/or founder, as well as reduced diet digestibility. The table expresses eNDF equally 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.

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

Protein

Protein values in the Table 1 reflect CP, which is simply nitrogen concentration multiplied by six.25. The degradable intake protein (DIP) column is an approximate of the proportion of the crude protein that is actually degradable in the rumen and is expressed as a percentage of CP. Undegradable protein (pct of CP) can be calculated by subtracting the DIP value from ane hundred.

Feed Free energy Values

Feed energy values are expressed on a DM basis as percentage total digestible nutrients (TDN), internet energy for maintenance (NEm), and internet 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 two.25 times digestible ether excerpt. Ether extract (EE) is the fat or lipid portion of the feed. The internet energy organization is by and large thought to exist more precise in estimating the energy value of feeds, peculiarly roughages. The internet free energy of feed is the portion that is available to the creature 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. Virtually of this energy that was digested will leave the creature'south body as rut. The free energy that is used for productive purposes (NEg) may be recovered every bit growth through retaining free 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 i and feed concentration is expressed on a percent of DM basis. Minerals that are needed by animals in much smaller quantities are referred to equally micro minerals and feed concentration is expressed in parts per million (ppm) in the table. To catechumen ppm to percentage, only movement the decimal place four places to the left. For instance, if a feed contained 12 ppm copper, the copper concentration expressed every bit a percentage would be 0.0012 percent.

Determination

Producers take to ensure that their animals' diets include the proper balance of the six essential nutrients in a physical form that maintains digestive arrangement health and function. To achieve this, producers must have adept knowledge of bachelor feed nutrient limerick, concrete and digestive characteristics, and the fauna's nutrient requirements.

Nutrient concentration and digestibility data tin can be determined by using digestion trials or measuring chemical limerick and applying this data to approximate digestibility. It is imperative that producers recognize that values published in any table are only averages and that variation among feed commodities, oilseeds, and in detail 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 Beefiness Cattle (seventh Edition). National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

 Table 1. Typical composition of feeds and forages.

 Typical composition of roughage (part one)

Feed	Blazon of Feed	Dry Matter %	NDF %	eNDFa % of NDF	CP %
1	Alfalfa Hay, Early Blossom	xc	39	92	25
2	Alfalfa Hay, Mid Bloom	ninety	47	92	22
3	Alfalfa Hay, Full Bloom	90	49	92	17
iv	Alfalfa Cubes	91	46	40	18
v	Alfalfa Dehydrated 17% CP	92	45	6	19
6	Bermuda Hay, Vegetative	90	69	80	xv
seven	Bermuda Hay, Early on Bloom	90	75	ninety	10
eight	Bermuda Hay, Full Bloom	90	79	98	8
nine	Corn Silage	35	46	lxx	8
x	Cotton Seed Hulls	90	87	100	4
11	Fescue Hay, Early on Flower	87	68	98	13
12	Fescue Hay, Full Flower	88	73	98	ix
13	Peanut Hulls	91	74	98	8
fourteen	Prairie Hay	91	73	98	6
xv	Rice Hulls	92	81	90	three
16	Sorghum Silage	32	59	70	9
17	Sudan Grass Silage	31	64	61	ten
eighteen	Sunflower Seed Hulls	ninety	73	90	four
19	Wheat Silage	33	62	61	13
20	Wheat Straw	91	81	98	iii
21	Wheat Harbinger, Ammoniated	85	76	98	nine

 Typical composition of roughage (part 2)

Feed	Type of Feed	DIPb % of CP	TDN %	NEm Mcal/cwt	NEg Mcal/cwt
1	Alfalfa Hay, Early on Bloom	88	60	59	33
2	Alfalfa Hay, Mid Flower	84	58	56	31
iii	Alfalfa Hay, Full Bloom	82	55	52	26
4	Alfalfa Cubes	seventy	57	55	29
five	Alfalfa Dehydrated 17% CP	41	61	61	35
six	Bermuda Hay, Vegetative	eighty	57	55	29
seven	Bermuda Hay, Early Flower	72	53	49	24
viii	Bermuda Hay, Total Blossom	68	47	39	xv
ix	Corn Silage	72	72	77	49
10	Cotton fiber Seed Hulls	55	45	45	3
eleven	Fescue Hay, Early Bloom	72	57	55	29
12	Fescue Hay, Full Bloom	68	fifty	52	sixteen
thirteen	Peanut Hulls	twoscore	22	36	0
14	Prairie Hay	63	52	l	12
15	Rice Hulls	45	thirteen	35	0
xvi	Sorghum Silage	71	59	58	32
17	Sudan Grass Silage	72	58	56	31
xviii	Sunflower Seed Hulls	35	forty	42	0
19	Wheat Silage	79	59	58	32
20	Wheat Harbinger	xl	42	43	0
21	Wheat Straw, Ammoniated	75	50	fifty	12

 Typical composition of roughage (part 3)

Feed	Type of Feed	EE %	Ca %	P %	G %
1	Alfalfa Hay, Early Bloom	ii.five	one.41	0.22	ii.51
2	Alfalfa Hay, Mid Bloom	2.half dozen	one.37	0.22	ane.56
three	Alfalfa Hay, Total Bloom	ii.3	ane.19	0.24	i.56
four	Alfalfa Cubes	2	1.3	0.23	i.9
v	Alfalfa Dehydrated 17% CP	3	1.42	0.25	2.5
6	Bermuda Hay, Vegetative	two.3	0.59	0.28	1.nine
7	Bermuda Hay, Early Bloom	1.9	0.51	0.two	one.6
8	Bermuda Hay, Full Bloom	1.viii	0.43	0.18	1.4
9	Corn Silage	3.1	0.28	0.23	1.i
10	Cotton Seed Hulls	1.9	0.15	0.09	1.1
xi	Fescue Hay, Early Blossom	4.8	0.45	0.37	2.five
12	Fescue Hay, Full Bloom	three.5	0.four	0.26	1.vii
xiii	Peanut Hulls	i.v	0.2	0.07	0.nine
xiv	Prairie Hay	2	0.4	0.15	1.1
15	Rice Hulls	0.nine	0.fourteen	0.07	0.5
16	Sorghum Silage	2.vii	0.49	0.22	one.72
17	Sudan Grass Silage	3	0.58	0.27	2.four
18	Sunflower Seed Hulls	two.2	0	0.11	0.2
nineteen	Wheat Silage	3.2	0.iv	0.28	2.1
twenty	Wheat Straw	1.8	0.16	0.05	ane.iii
21	Wheat Harbinger, Ammoniated	1.v	0.xv	0.05	one.3

 Typical composition of roughage (part 4)

Feed	Blazon of Feed	South %	Cu ppm	Mn ppm	Zn ppm
one	Alfalfa Hay, Early on Blossom	0.3	13	36	30
two	Alfalfa Hay, Mid Flower	0.28	11	28	31
three	Alfalfa Hay, Total Flower	0.27	10	28	26
4	Alfalfa Cubes	0.35	9	32	18
v	Alfalfa Dehydrated 17% CP	0.24	ix	34	21
6	Bermuda Hay, Vegetative	0.3	12	170	36
7	Bermuda Hay, Early Bloom	0.25	8	140	31
viii	Bermuda Hay, Full Bloom	0.21	8	110	26
ix	Corn Silage	0.12	4	24	22
10	Cotton Seed Hulls	0.05	13	119	10
11	Fescue Hay, Early on Bloom	0.21	11	200	34
12	Fescue Hay, Full Bloom	0.17	vii	100	23
13	Peanut Hulls	0.07	11	38	20
14	Prairie Hay	0.06	four	59	34
fifteen	Rice Hulls	0.08	3	320	24
16	Sorghum Silage	0.12	9	69	xxx
17	Sudan Grass Silage	0.14	37	99	29
eighteen	Sunflower Seed Hulls	0.19			200
nineteen	Wheat Silage	0.21	ix	eighty	27
twenty	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	thirteen
29	Bermuda, Autumn, Mature	80	77	100	8
30	Bermuda, Wintertime, 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.-February.	90	77	100	7
34	Fescue, Vegetative	29	lx	40	xviii
35	Fescue, Boot Stage	33	65	100	12
36	Fescue, Mature	70	74	100	8
37	Fescue, Stockpiled, Nov.-Dec.	twoscore	72	100	xiii
38	Fescue, Stockpiled, Jan.-Feb.	60	75	100	11
39	Native Range, Apr-June	30	68	100	xiv
forty	Native Range, July-August	35	71	100	10
41	Native Range, Sept.-October.	46	75	100	seven
42	Native Range, Nov.-December.	75	78	100	v
43	Native Range, Jan.-March	85	80	100	4
44	Wheat Forage, Vegetative	21	fifty	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	forty
28	Bermuda, Boot Stage	75	60	59	33
29	Bermuda, Fall, Mature	lx	48	41	xvi
30	Bermuda, Winter, Mature	55	44	34	x
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	fifteen
34	Fescue, Vegetative	80	64	65	39
35	Fescue, Boot Phase	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	iii
39	Native Range, April-June	75	seventy	74	47
twoscore	Native Range, July-August	70	64	65	39
41	Native Range, Sept.-Oct.	65	59	58	32
42	Native Range, Nov.-December.	65	55	52	26
43	Native Range, January.-March	55	49	42	18
44	Wheat Forage, Vegetative	84	71	76	48

 Typical composition of grazed fodder

Feed	Type of Feed	EE %	Ca %	P %	K %
27	Bermuda, Vegetative	three	0.46	0.31	ane.9
28	Bermuda, Boot Stage	two.vii	0.59	0.28	1.nine
29	Bermuda, Autumn, Mature	2.1	0.26	0.18	one.3
30	Bermuda, Winter, Mature	i.5	0.3	0.15	1
31	Bermuda, Stockpiled, Sept.-Oct	2.5	0.66	0.24	0.88
32	Bermuda, Stockpiled, Nov.-Dec.	ii.ane	0.52	0.22	0.55
33	Bermuda, Stockpiled, Jan.-Feb.	1.5	0.48	0.18	0.32
34	Fescue, Vegetative	four.5	0.5	0.4	ii.5
35	Fescue, Boot Stage	3.eight	0.45	0.3	1.viii
36	Fescue, Mature	3.2	0.38	0.2	1.4
37	Fescue, Stockpiled, Nov.-December.	2.7	0.45	0.3	1.8
38	Fescue, Stockpiled, Jan.-February.	ii.2	0.38	0.two	ane.four
39	Native Range, April-June	3.2	0.iii	0.two	i.half dozen
twoscore	Native Range, July-August	three	0.33	0.15	ane.v
41	Native Range, Sept.-Oct.	ii.v	0.28	0.12	1.1
42	Native Range, Nov.-Dec.	two.2	0.25	0.09	0.eight
43	Native Range, Jan.-March	1.7	0.23	0.07	0.half-dozen
44	Wheat Provender, Vegetative	4	0.35	0.36	3.1

 Typical composition of grazed forage

Feed	Type of Feed	Due south %	CU ppm	Mn ppm	Zn ppm
27	Bermuda, Vegetative	0.33	xiii	185	32
28	Bermuda, Boot Stage	0.3	12	160	36
29	Bermuda, Fall, Mature	0.21	ix	140	twenty
thirty	Bermuda, Winter, Mature	0.15	7	45	15
31	Bermuda, Stockpiled, Sept.-Oct	0.26	6	151	27
32	Bermuda, Stockpiled, November.-Dec.	0.27	5	117	26
33	Bermuda, Stockpiled, Jan.-February.	0.25	iv	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, January.-February.	0.18	7	120	26
39	Native Range, April-June	0.15	11
40	Native Range, July-August
41	Native Range, Sept.-October.
42	Native Range, November.-Dec.
43	Native Range, Jan.-March
44	Wheat Forage, Vegetative	0.22	x	85	35

 Typical composition of byproduct feeds

Feed	Type of Feed	Dry out 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
l	Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn, Sorghum	92	46	iv	31
51	Grain Screenings	90	23		14
52	Rice Bran, Full Fat	91	lx	0	xiv
53	Rice Manufactory 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	nineteen
57	Wheat Manufactory Run	90	37	0	17
58	Wheat Shorts	89	30	0	twenty

 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	seventy	74	47
56	Wheat Middlings	78	79	87	58
57	Wheat Mill Run	72	75	81	53
58	Wheat Shorts	75	fourscore	88	59

 Typical composition of byproduct feeds

Feed	Blazon of Feed	Dry Thing %	NDF %	eNDFa % of NDF	CP %
47	Barley Malt Pellets with Hulls	1.nine	0.21	0.59	one.2
48	Corn Gluten Feed	3.2	0.xiv	1.07	i.five
49	Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn	13	0.07	0.87	one.1
50	Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn, Sorghum	ten	0.25	0.65	0.5
51	Grain Screenings	v.5	0.25	0.34
52	Rice Bran, Full Fat	xix	0.66	1.7	1.eight
53	Rice Mill Byproduct	v.7	0.4	0.31	2.two
54	Soybean Hulls	2.6	0.53	0.18	1.4
55	Wheat Bran	iv.5	0.13	1.29	i.4
56	Wheat Middlings	4.vi	0.15	1	one.4
57	Wheat Manufactory 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	seven	22	67
49	Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn	0.65	five	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 limerick of feed grains

Feed	Type of Feed	Dry Matter %	NDF %	eNDFa % of NDF	CP %
64	Corn Grain, Cracked, Rolled, or Ground	88	9	sixty	ten
65	Corn Grain, Steam Flaked	85	ix	xl	10
66	Wheat	89	12	0	14
67	Milo, Ground	89	16	5	11
68	Milo, Steam Flaked	82	twenty	38	xi

 Typical limerick of feed grains

Feed	Type of Feed	DIPb % of CP	TDN %	NEm Mcal/cwt	NEg Mcal/cwt
64	Corn Grain, Croaky, 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	xc	102	70

 Typical limerick of feed grains

Feed	Type of Feed	EE %	Ca %	P %	K %
64	Corn Grain, Croaky, Rolled, or Footing	4.three	0.02	0.iii	0.iv
65	Corn Grain, Steam Flaked	4.one	0.02	0.27	0.4
66	Wheat	two.3	0.05	0.44	0.four
67	Milo, Ground	three.i	0.04	0.32	0.4
68	Milo, Steam Flaked	3.1	0.04	0.28	0.four

 Typical limerick of feed grains

Feed	Type of Feed	S %	Cu ppm	MN ppm	Zn ppm
64	Corn Grain, Cracked, Rolled, or Ground	0.12	three	viii	xviii
65	Corn Grain, Steam Flaked	0.12	3	8	18
66	Wheat	0.xiv	vi	37	40
67	Milo, Ground	0.14	five	fifteen	xviii
68	Milo, Steam Flaked	0.14	v	xv	18

 Typical composition of loftier protein meals and seeds

Feed	Type of Feed	Dry Affair %	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	fifteen	100	40
74	Sunflower Seed Meal, Solvent	91	24	eighty	xix
75	Sunflower Seed Meal with Hulls	91	xl	23	26
76	Mung Beans	90			23
77	Feather Repast	92	44	23	86

 Typical composition of loftier 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 Repast with Hulls	80	lx	68	42
76	Mung Beans	25	79	87	58
77	Plume Meal	27	69	73	45

 Typical composition of high protein meals and seeds

Feed	Type of Feed	EE %	Ca %	P %	1000 %
69	Cottonseed, Whole	17.eight	0.16	0.62	ane.22
lxx	Cottonseed Meal, 41%	ane.8	0.22	1.25	one.vii
71	Peanut Meal, Solvent	3.vi	0.24	0.58	1
72	Soybean Meal, 48%	12	0.28	0.71	2.two
73	Soybeans, Whole	18.8	0.27	0.64	2
74	Sunflower Seed Meal, Solvent	42	0.71	0.51	one.06
75	Sunflower Seed Repast with Hulls	two.9	0.45	1.02	one.27
76	Mung Beans		one.nineteen	0.68	i.iv
77	Feather Meal	half dozen.five	0.6	0.62	0.ii

 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
seventy	Cottonseed Meal, 41%	0.44	17	57	66
71	Peanut Meal, Solvent	0.iii	16	29	38
72	Soybean Repast, 48%	0.47	23	41	61
73	Soybeans, Whole	0.34	fifteen	35	59
74	Sunflower Seed Meal, Solvent	0.21	20	35	53
75	Sunflower Seed Meal with Hulls	0.33	4	xx	105
76	Mung Beans	0.25
77	Feather Meal	1.85	14	12	95

a Effective neutral detergent insoluble cobweb.

b Degradable intake poly peptide.

Was this information helpful?

YESNO

shirleyhuselp.blogspot.com

Source: https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/nutritive-value-of-feeds-for-beef-cattle.html

Share this post