Nrc Feed Composition Table for Beef Cattle

Nutritive Value of Feeds for Beef Cattle

By David Lalman

Bound To:
• Dry out Matter
• Fiber
• Effective NDF
• Protein
• Feed Energy Values
• Minerals
• Determination

Animals require consumption of chemic elements and compounds to sustain actual functions, for skeletal and tissue growth, and to support the reproductive process. The necessary chemical elements and compounds are referred to every bit nutrients and tin can be 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 system has been used to describe the chemical composition of feeds. Components of proximate assay are shown in Figure ane.

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

Nutritional value is determined by food concentration and nutrient digestibility. Proximate analysis is one method used to determine nutrient concentration, although very piffling information about nutrient digestibility is gained. True nutrient digestibility information is determined using digestion trials, simply information technology is not practical to test digestibility on all feeds. Therefore, previous digestibility information from similar feeds and previous relationships betwixt digestibility and some nutrient concentration measures is usually used to estimate digestibility. Tabular array ane contains average nutrient concentration values for numerous feeds that are common in Oklahoma. Values in the table represent averages from numerous dissimilar sources, such as the National Inquiry Council'south Nutrient Requirements of Beef and Dairy Cattle publications, commercial laboratories, inquiry trials, and other publications. Beef magazine too publishes a Feed Composition Guide that is updated annually. The 2008 guide can be constitute at http://beefmagazine.com/images/2008_feed_comp_cattle_sheep.html.

Producers must recognize that values published in any tabular array are merely typical averages and that variation among grains, oilseeds, byproducts, and in particular forages and roughages tin 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 better quality control and standardization among commercial laboratories, the National Provender Testing Association (NFTA), institute at http://world wide web.foragetesting.org, provides a unique certification service. At this Web site, one tin can as well view the NFTA's recommendations for laboratory procedures and equations for utilise in predicting energy availability for unlike forage types. One of the master decisions you will take to make is to take a Near Infrared Reflectance Spectrophotometer (NIRS) or wet chemistry.  Generally NIRS is less costly as it estimates wet chemistry values past billowy lite through samples. With this blazon of assay, the lab should have a list of types of feed samples that they tin clarify past this method. For instance, well-nigh labs tin can perform quality NIRS analysis on alfalfa samples. For samples that the lab does non specify they accept NIRS capabilities, you should consider having wet chemical science assay completed.

Dry Affair

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. Side by side, 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 divergence. Other than physical characteristics of the feed, wet content has little to no begetting on the availability of nutrients within that feed.

Dry affair is an extremely variable component amidst and within types of feeds. Fresh forages, silages and moisture byproduct feeds are likely to vary the most in DM content. Some silages and byproduct feeds contain every bit fiddling as 25 percent DM (75 percent wet). A practiced rule of pollex is that dry feeds should incorporate no more than than virtually 12 percentage moisture for safe storage in overhead bins.

Cobweb

The original proximate analysis arrangement separated carbohydrates into crude fiber and nitrogen free excerpt (NFE) fractions. The crude fiber portion of the feedstuff was intended to correspond the indigestible fiber fraction and NFE was supposed to represent the more than readily digestible carbohydrates, such as sugars and starches. Withal, it was presently discovered that this system had serious limitations, especially for gristly feeds like forages.

Because of the wide variation in chemical analyses for crude cobweb and NFE, a new system called the detergent cobweb system was developed, which amend reflects true saccharide digestibility in ruminants (Figure 2). The neutral detergent solubles (NDS) fraction is comprised of cell contents that are virtually 100% digestible. The neutral detergent insoluble cobweb (NDF) fraction is made up of primarily cell wall tissue, which consists of hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin. The NDF fraction also contains pocket-sized amounts of silica and fiber-leap or heat-damaged protein. The NDF fraction of feeds and forages is quite variable in digestibility. Using an acid solution, the NDF remainder can be farther separated into acid detergent solubles (ADS; primarily hemicellulose) and acrid detergent insoluble cobweb (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 up with a feed tag, crude fiber is the only cobweb analysis that is required. Unfortunately, this provides trivial assistance in determining the nutrient value or digestibility of the feed. However, it may be possible for your feed representative to provide yous 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 textile, ADF is inversely related to the digestibility of feed ingredients. This relationship explains why some forages and feeds contain loftier NDF concentrations, but remain loftier in digestibility, while others may incorporate moderate or low NDF concentrations, yet are low in digestible energy.

Figure two. The detergent fiber organization.

Figure three. Fiber fractions in the detergent fiber system.

Constructive NDF

The effective NDF (eNDF) value shown in Tabular array i is a measure of the feed NDF that is effective in stimulating rumen move 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 adamant past several factors including particle size, density, hydration, and degree of lignification. To maintain optimal forage digestion, the diet should contain a minimum of twenty percent eNDF on a DM basis.

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

Protein

Protein values in the Tabular array one reverberate CP, which is simply nitrogen concentration multiplied by 6.25. The degradable intake poly peptide (DIP) cavalcade is an guess of the proportion of the crude poly peptide that is actually degradable in the rumen and is expressed equally a percentage of CP. Undegradable poly peptide (percent of CP) can be calculated by subtracting the DIP value from ane hundred.

Feed Energy Values

Feed energy values are expressed on a DM ground as per centum full digestible nutrients (TDN), net energy for maintenance (NEm), and cyberspace free energy for proceeds (NEg) units (mega calories per 100 lbs of feed). TDN is determined by conveying 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 internet energy system is generally thought to be more precise in estimating the energy value of feeds, especially 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 piece of work, maintenance and repair of tissues, maintaining a stable torso temperature, and other body functions. Most of this energy that was digested will go out the animal's body as rut. 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 considering its energy efficiency is like to maintenance uses.

Minerals

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

Determination

Producers accept to ensure that their animals' diets include the proper residue of the six essential nutrients in a concrete class that maintains digestive system health and part. To accomplish this, producers must have expert cognition of available feed nutrient composition, physical and digestive characteristics, and the animal's nutrient requirements.

Nutrient concentration and digestibility data can exist determined past using digestion trials or measuring chemical composition and applying this data to estimate digestibility. It is imperative that producers recognize that values published in whatever table are merely averages and that variation amidst feed bolt, 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 Beef Cattle (7th Edition). National Academy Printing, Washington, DC.

 Table one. Typical composition of feeds and forages.

 Typical composition of roughage (function 1)

Feed	Type of Feed	Dry Affair %	NDF %	eNDFa % of NDF	CP %
1	Alfalfa Hay, Early on Bloom	ninety	39	92	25
ii	Alfalfa Hay, Mid Bloom	ninety	47	92	22
3	Alfalfa Hay, Full Bloom	90	49	92	17
4	Alfalfa Cubes	91	46	40	eighteen
5	Alfalfa Dehydrated 17% CP	92	45	half dozen	19
vi	Bermuda Hay, Vegetative	90	69	fourscore	15
seven	Bermuda Hay, Early on Flower	90	75	90	10
viii	Bermuda Hay, Full Bloom	ninety	79	98	8
9	Corn Silage	35	46	lxx	8
10	Cotton Seed Hulls	90	87	100	four
11	Fescue Hay, Early Blossom	87	68	98	13
12	Fescue Hay, Full Flower	88	73	98	9
thirteen	Peanut Hulls	91	74	98	8
14	Prairie Hay	91	73	98	6
15	Rice Hulls	92	81	90	3
16	Sorghum Silage	32	59	lxx	9
17	Sudan Grass Silage	31	64	61	10
18	Sunflower Seed Hulls	xc	73	90	4
19	Wheat Silage	33	62	61	thirteen
20	Wheat Straw	91	81	98	3
21	Wheat Harbinger, Ammoniated	85	76	98	9

 Typical composition of roughage (part 2)

Feed	Blazon 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
vii	Bermuda Hay, Early Bloom	72	53	49	24
viii	Bermuda Hay, Full Bloom	68	47	39	15
9	Corn Silage	72	72	77	49
x	Cotton wool Seed Hulls	55	45	45	3
eleven	Fescue Hay, Early Bloom	72	57	55	29
12	Fescue Hay, Full Bloom	68	50	52	sixteen
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
eighteen	Sunflower Seed Hulls	35	40	42	0
nineteen	Wheat Silage	79	59	58	32
twenty	Wheat Harbinger	40	42	43	0
21	Wheat Harbinger, Ammoniated	75	50	50	12

 Typical composition of roughage (role 3)

Feed	Type of Feed	EE %	Ca %	P %	Chiliad %
ane	Alfalfa Hay, Early Bloom	two.5	1.41	0.22	2.51
ii	Alfalfa Hay, Mid Blossom	2.half dozen	i.37	0.22	one.56
three	Alfalfa Hay, Full Bloom	2.3	ane.19	0.24	i.56
4	Alfalfa Cubes	two	1.3	0.23	1.nine
5	Alfalfa Dehydrated 17% CP	three	ane.42	0.25	2.5
six	Bermuda Hay, Vegetative	2.3	0.59	0.28	1.9
7	Bermuda Hay, Early Bloom	ane.ix	0.51	0.two	one.half-dozen
eight	Bermuda Hay, Total Bloom	1.8	0.43	0.18	1.4
9	Corn Silage	3.1	0.28	0.23	one.1
x	Cotton Seed Hulls	1.9	0.15	0.09	1.1
11	Fescue Hay, Early Bloom	4.8	0.45	0.37	two.5
12	Fescue Hay, Full Bloom	3.5	0.4	0.26	i.7
13	Peanut Hulls	i.5	0.2	0.07	0.9
14	Prairie Hay	2	0.four	0.15	1.i
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.iv
eighteen	Sunflower Seed Hulls	2.two	0	0.xi	0.2
xix	Wheat Silage	3.2	0.4	0.28	ii.ane
twenty	Wheat Straw	1.8	0.sixteen	0.05	one.3
21	Wheat Straw, Ammoniated	1.5	0.15	0.05	1.3

 Typical composition of roughage (part 4)

Feed	Type of Feed	S %	Cu ppm	Mn ppm	Zn ppm
1	Alfalfa Hay, Early Bloom	0.3	13	36	thirty
ii	Alfalfa Hay, Mid Bloom	0.28	eleven	28	31
3	Alfalfa Hay, Full Bloom	0.27	10	28	26
iv	Alfalfa Cubes	0.35	9	32	18
5	Alfalfa Dehydrated 17% CP	0.24	nine	34	21
half dozen	Bermuda Hay, Vegetative	0.3	12	170	36
vii	Bermuda Hay, Early Bloom	0.25	8	140	31
8	Bermuda Hay, Full Flower	0.21	8	110	26
9	Corn Silage	0.12	4	24	22
10	Cotton wool Seed Hulls	0.05	xiii	119	10
xi	Fescue Hay, Early Bloom	0.21	11	200	34
12	Fescue Hay, Full Blossom	0.17	vii	100	23
13	Peanut Hulls	0.07	eleven	38	xx
fourteen	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.fourteen	37	99	29
eighteen	Sunflower Seed Hulls	0.nineteen			200
19	Wheat Silage	0.21	nine	fourscore	27
xx	Wheat Harbinger	0.17	five	35	six
21	Wheat Harbinger, Ammoniated	0.sixteen	v	35	6

 Typical composition of grazed forage

Feed	Blazon of Feed	Dry out Affair %	NDF %	eNDFa % of NDF	CP %
27	Bermuda, Vegetative	30	68	80	xvi
28	Bermuda, Kicking Stage	35	72	100	13
29	Bermuda, Fall, Mature	80	77	100	8
xxx	Bermuda, Winter, Mature	90	80	100	5
31	Bermuda, Stockpiled, Sept.-October	35	70	100	xiii
32	Bermuda, Stockpiled, Nov.-Dec.	85	74	100	eleven
33	Bermuda, Stockpiled, Jan.-Feb.	90	77	100	vii
34	Fescue, Vegetative	29	sixty	40	eighteen
35	Fescue, Kick Stage	33	65	100	12
36	Fescue, Mature	70	74	100	8
37	Fescue, Stockpiled, Nov.-Dec.	forty	72	100	thirteen
38	Fescue, Stockpiled, Jan.-Feb.	lx	75	100	11
39	Native Range, April-June	thirty	68	100	14
40	Native Range, July-August	35	71	100	10
41	Native Range, Sept.-October.	46	75	100	vii
42	Native Range, November.-December.	75	78	100	5
43	Native Range, January.-March	85	80	100	four
44	Wheat Fodder, Vegetative	21	50	41	22

 Typical composition of grazed provender

Feed	Type of Feed	DIPb % of CP	TDN %	NEm Mcal/cwt	NEg Mcal/cwt
27	Bermuda, Vegetative	85	65	67	xl
28	Bermuda, Boot Stage	75	60	59	33
29	Bermuda, Fall, Mature	sixty	48	41	16
30	Bermuda, Winter, Mature	55	44	34	10
31	Bermuda, Stockpiled, Sept.-Oct	70	57	55	29
32	Bermuda, Stockpiled, November.-December.	65	54	50	25
33	Bermuda, Stockpiled, Jan.-Feb.	60	47	39	xv
34	Fescue, Vegetative	eighty	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.-February.	68	twoscore	27	3
39	Native Range, April-June	75	seventy	74	47
forty	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 Fodder, Vegetative	84	71	76	48

 Typical composition of grazed forage

Feed	Blazon of Feed	EE %	Ca %	P %	K %
27	Bermuda, Vegetative	3	0.46	0.31	one.ix
28	Bermuda, Boot Stage	2.7	0.59	0.28	i.9
29	Bermuda, Autumn, Mature	ii.1	0.26	0.18	1.3
xxx	Bermuda, Wintertime, Mature	1.5	0.3	0.15	1
31	Bermuda, Stockpiled, Sept.-October	2.five	0.66	0.24	0.88
32	Bermuda, Stockpiled, Nov.-December.	2.1	0.52	0.22	0.55
33	Bermuda, Stockpiled, Jan.-Feb.	one.5	0.48	0.18	0.32
34	Fescue, Vegetative	4.5	0.v	0.4	ii.v
35	Fescue, Boot Stage	3.8	0.45	0.3	1.8
36	Fescue, Mature	3.2	0.38	0.ii	ane.four
37	Fescue, Stockpiled, Nov.-Dec.	ii.7	0.45	0.iii	ane.8
38	Fescue, Stockpiled, January.-Feb.	two.2	0.38	0.2	i.four
39	Native Range, Apr-June	3.2	0.3	0.2	i.6
40	Native Range, July-August	three	0.33	0.15	1.5
41	Native Range, Sept.-Oct.	two.five	0.28	0.12	1.1
42	Native Range, November.-Dec.	ii.2	0.25	0.09	0.8
43	Native Range, Jan.-March	one.seven	0.23	0.07	0.half dozen
44	Wheat Forage, Vegetative	four	0.35	0.36	3.1

 Typical composition of grazed forage

Feed	Type of Feed	Southward %	CU ppm	Mn ppm	Zn ppm
27	Bermuda, Vegetative	0.33	thirteen	185	32
28	Bermuda, Boot Stage	0.3	12	160	36
29	Bermuda, Fall, Mature	0.21	9	140	20
30	Bermuda, Wintertime, Mature	0.15	7	45	15
31	Bermuda, Stockpiled, Sept.-Oct	0.26	6	151	27
32	Bermuda, Stockpiled, Nov.-Dec.	0.27	v	117	26
33	Bermuda, Stockpiled, Jan.-Feb.	0.25	4	116	26
34	Fescue, Vegetative	0.24	thirteen	175	36
35	Fescue, Boot Stage	0.21	10	150	32
36	Fescue, Mature	0.18	vii	120	26
37	Fescue, Stockpiled, Nov.-Dec.	0.21	12	150	32
38	Fescue, Stockpiled, January.-Feb.	0.18	seven	120	26
39	Native Range, Apr-June	0.15	11
40	Native Range, July-August
41	Native Range, Sept.-Oct.
42	Native Range, November.-Dec.
43	Native Range, Jan.-March
44	Wheat Fodder, Vegetative	0.22	x	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	fifty	34	18
48	Corn Gluten Feed	90	40	36	24
49	Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn	89	33	four	31
50	Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn, Sorghum	92	46	4	31
51	Grain Screenings	90	23		14
52	Rice Bran, Full Fatty	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	ii	xix
57	Wheat Manufacturing plant 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	xl
52	Rice Bran, Full Fat	70	72	77	49
53	Rice Manufactory Byproduct	60	42	43	0
54	Soybean Hulls	72	77	84	55
55	Wheat Bran	72	lxx	74	47
56	Wheat Middlings	78	79	87	58
57	Wheat Manufacturing plant Run	72	75	81	53
58	Wheat Shorts	75	fourscore	88	59

 Typical limerick of byproduct feeds

Feed	Type of Feed	Dry out Thing %	NDF %	eNDFa % of NDF	CP %
47	Barley Malt Pellets with Hulls	one.nine	0.21	0.59	1.ii
48	Corn Gluten Feed	iii.2	0.xiv	i.07	i.five
49	Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn	13	0.07	0.87	1.1
l	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, Total Fat	19	0.66	ane.seven	1.8
53	Rice Mill Byproduct	5.7	0.iv	0.31	2.2
54	Soybean Hulls	2.6	0.53	0.xviii	1.4
55	Wheat Bran	4.five	0.thirteen	1.29	1.four
56	Wheat Middlings	4.half-dozen	0.15	1	i.4
57	Wheat Factory Run	four.4	0.12	1	1.2
58	Wheat Shorts	5.4	0.1	0.95	1.one

 Typical composition of byproduct feeds

Feed	Type of Feed	Dry Thing %	NDF %	eNDFa % of NDF	CP %
47	Barley Malt Pellets with Hulls	0.32	ten	44	61
48	Corn Gluten Feed	0.53	vii	22	67
49	Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn	0.65	v	21	68
50	Distillers Grains with Solubles, Corn, Sorghum	0.4			68
51	Grain Screenings				30
52	Rice Bran, Full Fat	0.nineteen	12	396	40
53	Rice Mill Byproduct	0.3			31
54	Soybean Hulls	0.12	18	ten	38
55	Wheat Bran	0.24	14		96
56	Wheat Middlings	0.24	xi	128	96
57	Wheat Mill Run	0.22	21		xc
58	Wheat Shorts	0.two	13		118

 Typical composition of feed grains

Feed	Type of Feed	Dry out Matter %	NDF %	eNDFa % of NDF	CP %
64	Corn Grain, Cracked, Rolled, or Ground	88	9	60	ten
65	Corn Grain, Steam Flaked	85	9	40	10
66	Wheat	89	12	0	xiv
67	Milo, Basis	89	16	5	eleven
68	Milo, Steam Flaked	82	twenty	38	11

 Typical composition of feed grains

Feed	Blazon of Feed	DIPb % of CP	TDN %	NEm Mcal/cwt	NEg Mcal/cwt
64	Corn Grain, Cracked, Rolled, or Footing	42	88	99	68
65	Corn Grain, Steam Flaked	41	93	106	74
66	Wheat	77	89	100	69
67	Milo, Basis	45	82	91	61
68	Milo, Steam Flaked	38	90	102	70

 Typical composition of feed grains

Feed	Blazon of Feed	EE %	Ca %	P %	Grand %
64	Corn Grain, Cracked, Rolled, or Ground	four.three	0.02	0.three	0.4
65	Corn Grain, Steam Flaked	four.1	0.02	0.27	0.4
66	Wheat	2.iii	0.05	0.44	0.four
67	Milo, Ground	3.ane	0.04	0.32	0.4
68	Milo, Steam Flaked	3.ane	0.04	0.28	0.iv

 Typical limerick of feed grains

Feed	Type of Feed	Southward %	Cu ppm	MN ppm	Zn ppm
64	Corn Grain, Croaky, Rolled, or Ground	0.12	three	8	18
65	Corn Grain, Steam Flaked	0.12	3	8	18
66	Wheat	0.14	6	37	forty
67	Milo, Ground	0.14	5	xv	eighteen
68	Milo, Steam Flaked	0.14	v	fifteen	18

 Typical composition of loftier protein meals and seeds

Feed	Type of Feed	Dry out Matter %	NDF %	eNDFa % of NDF	CP %
69	Cottonseed, Whole	91	47	100	23
70	Cottonseed Repast, 41%	90	25	23	48
71	Peanut Repast, Solvent	91	27	23	50
72	Soybean Repast, 48%	91	9	23	54
73	Soybeans, Whole	88	15	100	40
74	Sunflower Seed Repast, Solvent	91	24	80	19
75	Sunflower Seed Repast with Hulls	91	forty	23	26
76	Mung Beans	90			23
77	Plume Repast	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
lxx	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	eighty	60	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 %	Chiliad %
69	Cottonseed, Whole	17.8	0.16	0.62	1.22
lxx	Cottonseed Repast, 41%	ane.eight	0.22	1.25	1.vii
71	Peanut Meal, Solvent	3.vi	0.24	0.58	1
72	Soybean Repast, 48%	12	0.28	0.71	two.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	two.9	0.45	1.02	1.27
76	Mung Beans		1.nineteen	0.68	ane.4
77	Feather Repast	6.5	0.six	0.62	0.two

 Typical composition of high poly peptide meals and seeds

Feed	Type of Feed	S %	Cu ppm	Mn ppm	Zn ppm
69	Cottonseed, Whole	0.26	viii	12	38
70	Cottonseed Meal, 41%	0.44	17	57	66
71	Peanut Repast, Solvent	0.three	xvi	29	38
72	Soybean Meal, 48%	0.47	23	41	61
73	Soybeans, Whole	0.34	15	35	59
74	Sunflower Seed Repast, Solvent	0.21	xx	35	53
75	Sunflower Seed Repast with Hulls	0.33	iv	twenty	105
76	Mung Beans	0.25
77	Feather Meal	one.85	14	12	95

a Effective neutral detergent insoluble fiber.

b Degradable intake poly peptide.

Was this information helpful?

YESNO

mosescoven1943.blogspot.com

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

Share this post