Economic potential of field peas as an alternative to corn distillers dried grains with solubles in beef heifer growing diets

This study was conducted to (1) determine the economic potential of field peas relative to corn distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) in diets of growing heifers and (2) identify price points for competitive utilization of field peas as an alternative to corn DDGS in diets of growing heifers....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Applied Animal Science 2024-10, Vol.40 (5), p.591-597
Hauptverfasser: Undi, Michael, Biermacher, Jon T., Sedivec, Kevin, Long, Timothy
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This study was conducted to (1) determine the economic potential of field peas relative to corn distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) in diets of growing heifers and (2) identify price points for competitive utilization of field peas as an alternative to corn DDGS in diets of growing heifers. In a 2-yr study, 162 heifers/ yr were kept in 6 dry lot pens and fed isocaloric and isonitrogenous corn DDGS-based or field pea-based TMR in the fall and winter. Animal performance (final BW, total gain, and ADG) data analysis considered the fixed effects of diet (DDGS or peas), season (fall and winter), and diet × season interaction. Base-case ration costs were calculated using prices of $325∙t−1 and $366∙t−1 for corn DDGS and field peas, respectively. To understand market situations where field peas are more cost effective than DDGS, and vice versa, sensitivity analysis was conducted to calculate relative total cost of feeding peas versus DDGS for several combinations of prices of DDGS and field peas. Heifer performance was not affected by dietary treatment, which was expected because diets were formulated to be isocaloric and isonitrogenous. Therefore, the relative economics of diet (DDGS vs. field peas) is based on evaluation of costs. Base-case results indicated that field pea-based rations cost $6.89∙head−1 more than DDGS-based rations. Sensitivity analysis suggests that field peas only have a lower cost relative to corn DDGS in situations where the price of peas are between 30% and 50% less than the base-case price of peas at the same time that the prices of corn DDGS are at base-case prices and below. The breakeven price of field peas was $231.15∙t−1 ($7.64∙bushel−1), or 71% of the base-case price of DDGS. Overall, the value of field peas was mainly driven by the amount of field peas incorporated into diets and the price of field peas relative to DDGS. Results from this study offer useful economic information to the field pea processing industry about the range of prices that beef cattle producers can afford to pay for peas relative to DDGS. This information will help the industry to develop a reliable supply chain for field peas as a feed source for beef cattle.
ISSN:2590-2865
DOI:10.15232/aas.2024-02548