Effect of field peas, chickpeas, and lentils on rumen fermentation, digestion, microbial protein synthesis, and feedlot performance in receiving diets for beef cattle

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the use of pulse grains in receiving diets for cattle. In Exp. 1, 8 Holstein (615 +/- 97 kg of initial BW) and 8 Angus-crossbred steers (403 +/- 73 kg of initial BW) fitted with ruminal and duodenal cannulas were blocked by breed and used in a randomized complete block design to assess the effects of pulse grain inclusion in receiving diets on intake, ruminal fermentation, and site of digestion. Experiment 2 was a 39-d feedlot receiving trial in which 176 mixed-breed steers (254 +/- 19 kg of initial BW) were used in a randomized complete block design to determine the effects of pulse grains on DMI, ADG, and G:F in newly received feedlot cattle. In both studies, pulse grains (field peas, lentils, or chickpea) replaced corn and canola meal as the grain component in diets fed as a total mixed ration. Treatments included 1) corn and canola meal (control); 2) field pea; 3) lentil; and 4) chickpea. Preplanned orthogonal contrasts were conducted between control vs. chickpea, control vs. field pea, and control vs. lentil. In Exp. 1, there were no differences among treatments for DMI (11.63 kg/d, 2.32% of BW daily, P = 0.63) or OM intake (P = 0.63). No treatment effects for apparent ruminal (P = 0.10) and total tract OM digestibilities (P = 0.40) were detected when pulse grains replaced corn and canola meal. Crude protein intake (P = 0.78), microbial CP flow (P = 0.46), total tract CP digestibility (P = 0.45), and microbial efficiency (P = 0.18) were also not influenced by treatment. Total-tract ADF (P = 0.004) and NDF (P = 0.04) digestibilities were greater with field pea vs. control. Total VFA concentrations were lower for field pea (P = 0.009) and lentil (P < 0.001) compared with control. Chickpea, field pea, and lentil had lower (P < or = 0.03) acetate molar proportion than control. Ruminal pH (P = 0.18) and NH3 (P = 0.14) were not different among treatments. In Exp. 2, calves fed chickpea, field pea, and lentil had greater overall DMI (7.59 vs. 6.98 kg/d; P < or = 0.07) and final BW (332 vs. 323 kg; P < or = 0.04), whereas chickpea and lentil had greater ADG (1.90 vs. 1.71 kg/d; P < or = 0.04) than control. Gain efficiency (P = 0.18) did not differ among treatments. Steers fed pulse grains had similar CP and OM digestibilities compared with a combination of corn and canola meal in receiving diets. Pulse grains are a viable alternative for replacement of protein supplements in receiving diets for beef cattle.

Effect of the dietary level of cull pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) on ruminal fermentation, kinetics, and digestibility of hair lambs

“…Reed et al (2004), however, reported that inclusion of field peas linearly decrease acetate molar proportion and do not have an effect on propionate and butyrate molar proportions. Contrary to the results presented in the present study, Gilbery et al (2007) found that inclusion of legume grains decrease acetate concentration. Volatile fatty acid concentration is regulated by the balance between production and absorption.…”

“…Castillo et al (2011) demonstrated that mature ewes can tolerate higher levels of CPB than primiparous (averaging 11 months old), which developed diarrhea when 0.50 kg kg -1 of CPB was included in their supplement, while multiparous ewes (averaging 36 months old) did not develop this metabolic disorder. Other studies have reported similar results when different legume grains were fed to ruminants (Surra et al, 1992;Singh et al, 2006;Gilbery et al, 2007). Patterson et al (1999) found that the inclusion of cull beans in the diets of steers decreased NDF degradability; these results are in contrast with those reported in this study.…”

“…The results of this study showed that ruminal pH did not affect DMD and NDF because it was similar across the day. Gilbery et al (2007) reported that inclusion of field peas, lentil screenings, and chickpeas in feedlot cattle receiving diets did not affect ruminal pH, with an average pH of 6.35 across the treatments that included these legume grains.…”

“…Soto-Navarro et al (2004) did not report differences on fermentative parameters when field pea levels increased. In another study, in which different legume grains were included in diets of feedlot beef cattle, it was reported that the presence of these ingredients decreased ruminal VFA concentration (Gilbery et al, 2007). Reed et al (2004), however, reported that inclusion of field peas linearly decrease acetate molar proportion and do not have an effect on propionate and butyrate molar proportions.…”

Critical Evaluation of Soybean Role in Animal Production Chains Based on the Valorization of Locally Produced Feedstuff

“…As a consequence, scientific research was directed to increase knowledge on cultivation, plant breeding and utilization as animal feed of these grain legumes [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. Results showed that in ruminant, monogastric and avian animals at least a partial replacement of soybeans is feasible in intensive animal farming systems, whereas in low input or organic farming systems soybean can be completely replaced by grain legumes that can be grown on farm where soybean cultivation is not feasible [24].…”