OREGON FORAGE AND BYPRODUCT LIBRARY
Oregon State University
1998
Introduction
Winter feeding costs put Oregon beef producers at an economic disadvantage. Beef cattle producers in the Western United States, including Oregon, compete at an economic disadvantage relative to other regions in North America because of relatively high winter feed costs. Feeding 1.5 to 2.5 tons of hay to mature cows during the winter feeding period can represent more than 50% of the producer's input costs. The ability of cow-calf producers to compete with other regions of North America may relate to how effectively winter feed costs can be reduced while maintaining acceptable levels of beef cattle production.
Accurate forage analysis is critical to profitable winter feeding programs. It has long been recognized that book value nutrient analyses for forages grown in other parts of the country do not accurately represent Oregon forages. To formulate winter beef diets, analyses for Oregon produced forages are needed. Therefore, over 30 forages grown in Oregon were selected for extensive analysis by researchers from Oregon State University. These forages were evaluated for protein, energy, fat, fiber, and mineral content (Tables 1 and 2). In addition, the OSU research team has also compiled dry matter, crude protein and acid detergent fiber results from hay surveys of over 400 forage samples to create the Oregon Forage Library (Table 3).
How do I use the Oregon Forage Library?
Table 1 contains complete analyses of 32 Oregon forages in TAURUS format. Ideally, producers should have their own forage tested each year for dry matter, crude protein, and acid detergent fiber. Compare their forage analysis with this table and use the estimates of energy for beef cattle (TDN, NEm and NEg) and the other analyses to formulate the rations. This information is in the format used in the TAURUS program. The mineral analyses are also included on this table.
Table 1a. Taurus version of forage analyses
Table 1b. Taurus version of forage analyses (part 2)
Table 2 contains complete analyses of 32 Oregon forages in 1996 NRC Beef format. The units are metric and identical to those listed in the NRC. This table includes new assays such as NPN percent of soluble crude protein, ADFIP, NDFIP, starch as a percent of non-structural carbohydrates, etc.
Table 2a. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle version of forage analyses
Table 2b. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle version of forage analyses (part 2).
Table 3 lists the DM, CP and ADF of hundreds of Oregon produced forages. Averages and ranges of forages for which we had multiple samples are printed in bold. The DM for the forages are all stated as 90% with a range of 88 to 92. If you do not have a forage analysis available, pick out the feed that most closely describes the producer's growing conditions and then turn to Tables 1 and 2 for estimates of chemical analyses. The nutrient requirements for various classes of cattle are available from several sources including text books, the Cow-Calf Management Handbook and several computer ration formulation programs.
Table 3. Dry matter, crude protein and acid detergent fiber levels
Table 4 lists Oregon Byproduct Feeds. This table resulted from a study performed by Gene Pirelli and Dr. Kellems in the 1980s. Some of these products may no longer be available.
Table 4. Oregon byproduct feed analyses
How did we calculate the energy values?
Commercial labs commonly use acid detergent fiber data to predict the energy content (NE or TDN) of forages. The ADF regression equations describe a statistical relationship rather than a biological one. Therefore, equations derived to predict the energy content of one forage, such as alfalfa, cannot be used to predict energy values for other forages, such as grasses.
We chose to use a theoretically-based model that could be used for legume and grass forages, as well as byproduct feeds and heat-damaged forages. The OARDC Prediction Model was developed at Ohio State University by Conrad in 1984 and revised by Weiss (1992). Forages are analyzed for protein, fat, soluble carbohydrates and fiber fractions and results are summed to estimate the energy. Instead of using ADF to predict TDN, a complication equation is used that includes analysis of crude protein, protein bound to the ADF, ether extract, neutral detergent fiber, lignin, protein bound to NDF, and ash (Weiss, 1995). The TDN values were converted to NEg and NEm by using a conversion table in the Beef Cow Ration Balancer from Kansas State University Extension Service.
Acknowledgments
This project has been a collaborative effort between OSU Campus, Extension, and Experiment Station personnel. This project was funded by the Oregon State University Extension Innovation Grant Program, OSU Department of Animal Sciences, and the College of Agricultural Sciences Extension Agriculture Program. It is a cooperative effort between an OSU Extension Livestock Working Group and campus personnel. Grant writing, laboratory work and compilation of the Oregon Forage Library was performed by: Ron Hathaway, Klamath Extension Service; Diane Carroll, OSU Department of Animal Sciences, Corvallis; Tim DelCurto, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Union; Shauna Foster and Wendy Black, students in the OSU Department of Animal Sciences; Mark Keller, Forage Technician, OSU Department of Animal Sciences; and Robert Van Saun, OSU College of Veterinary Medicine.
Many extension agents, specialists, and laboratory personnel from the Experiment Stations across the state collected feeds, analyzed samples, and assisted with the production of the tables. These included: Roxanne Bailey, Mylen Bohle, Bill Broderick, Jay Carr, Dave Chamberlain, Gary Delaney, Randy Dovel, Gary Farnsworth, Tom Hill, Clint Jacks, DeVon Knutson, Randy Mills, Bob Pawelek, Scott Paxton, Amy Peters, Gene Pirelli, Jim Rainey, Willie Riggs, John Williams, and Bill Zollinger.
KEY TO THE TABLES
| ADF, %DM | = acid detergent fiber on a dry matter basis - Table 1 ADF = cellulose and lignin |
| ADFIP, %DM | = acid detergent protein on a dry matter basis - Table 1 Unavailable protein bound to the ADF fraction |
| ADFIP, %CP | = acid detergent protein as a percent of crude protein on a dry matter basis - Table 2 |
| As-Fed, %DM | = dry matter on an as-fed basis |
| Ash, %DM | = ash on a dry matter basis - Table 1 |
| Ca, %DM | = calcium on a dry matter basis - Table 1 |
| CP, %DM | = crude protein of the forage on a dry matter basis - Table 1 and 2 |
| Cu, ppm | = copper, parts per million (mg/kg) on a dry matter basis - Table 1 |
| DIP, %CP | = degradable intake protein, percent of CP on a dry matter basis - Table 1 and 2. See note under UIP, %CP. |
| DM, %As-Fed | = dry matter on an as-fed basis |
| EE, %DM | = ether extract on a dry matter basis - Table 1 |
| Fat, % DM | = crude fat on a dry matter basis - Table 2 |
| Fe, ppm | = iron, parts per million (mg/kg) on a dry matter basis - Table 1 |
| K, %DM | = potassium on a dry matter basis - Table 1 |
| Lignin, %DM | = lignin on a dry matter basis - Table 1 |
| Lignin, %NDF | = lignin as a percent of neutral detergent fiber on a dry matter basis - Table 2 |
| ME, Mcal/kg | = metabolizable energy (Mcal/kg) - Table 2 |
| Mg, %DM | = magnesium on a dry matter basis - Table 1 |
| Mn, ppm | = manganese, parts per million (mg/kg) on a dry matter basis - Table 1 |
| Mo, ppm | = molybdenum, parts per million (mg/kg) on a dry matter basis - Table 1 |
| Na, %DM | = sodium on a dry matter basis - Table 1 |
| NDF, %DM | = neutral detergent fiber on a dry matter basis - Table 1 and 2 NDF = hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin |
| NDFIP, %DM | = neutral detergent protein on a dry matter basis - Table 1 Unavailable protein bound to the NDF fraction |
| NDFIP, %CP | = neutral detergent protein as a percent of crude protein on a dry matter basis - Table 2 |
| NEm, Mcal/kg | = net energy of maintenance (Mcal/kg) - Table 2 |
| NEm, Mcal/lb | = net energy of maintenance (Mcal/lb) - Table 1 |
| NEg, Mcal/kg | = net energy of gain (Mcal/kg) - Table 2 |
| NEg, Mcal/lb | = net energy of gain (Mcal/lb) - Table 1 |
| NFC, %DM | = nonfiber carbohydrate, also known as NSC or non-structural carbohydrates - Table 1 NFC = 100 - CP - (NDF - NDFIP) - EE - ash |
| NPN, %DM | = non-protein nitrogen on a dry matter basis - Table 1 |
| NPN, %Sol CP | = non-protein nitrogen as a percent of soluble crude protein on a dry matter basis - Table 2 |
| P, %DM | = phosphorus on a dry matter basis - Table 1 |
| Se, ppm | = selenium, parts per million (mg/kg) on a dry matter basis - Table 1 |
| Sol CP, %CP | = soluble crude protein as a percent of crude protein - Table 1 |
| Starch, %DM | = starch on a dry matter basis - Table 1 |
| Starch, %NSC | = starch as a percent of nonstructural carbohydrates on a dry matter basis - Table 2 |
| TDN, %DM | = total digestible nutrients on a dry matter basis - Table 1 and 2 |
| UIP, %CP | = undegradable intake protein as a percent of CP on a dry matter basis - Table 1 and 2 Also known as bypass protein. Based on an 18-hr in-situ study using 450 kg steers on a 80:20 meadow hay: corn diet. Analysis performed by Tim DelCurto at EOARC-Union, OR. Results appropriate for beef only and should not be used for dairy. |
| Zn, ppm | = zinc, parts per million (mg/kg) on a dry matter basis - Table 1 |
Comments
If you have any comments or would like to recommend specific forages be added to the Oregon Forage Library, please contact Ron Hathaway, Klamath Extension Service, (541) 883-7131.
