Beef Magazine is part of the Informa Markets Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

2007 Feed Composition

Nutrition research spanning more than 100 years has defined the nutrients required by animals. Using this information, diets can be formulated from feeds and ingredients to meet these requirements with the expectation that animals will not only remain healthy, but will also be productive and efficient. The ultimate goal of feed analysis is to predict the productive response of animals when they are

Nutrition research spanning more than 100 years has defined the nutrients required by animals. Using this information, diets can be formulated from feeds and ingredients to meet these requirements with the expectation that animals will not only remain healthy, but will also be productive and efficient. The ultimate goal of feed analysis is to predict the productive response of animals when they are fed diets of a given nutrient composition.

Click to view table (.pdf)

Table values for feed composition

Unlike chemicals that are “chemically pure” and thus have a constant composition, feeds vary in their composition for many reasons. What is the value then of showing composition data for feeds? An actual analysis of a feed to be used in a diet is much more accurate than the use of tabulated composition data. Actual analysis should be obtained and used whenever possible. But it is often difficult or impossible to determine actual composition; therefore, tabulated data are the best source of information.

In using tabulated values, one can expect organic constituents (e.g., crude protein, ether extract, crude fiber, acid detergent fiber and neutral detergent fiber) to vary as much as ±15%, mineral constituents to vary as much as ±30% and energy values to vary up to ±10%. Thus, these values can only serve as guides; that's why they are called “typical values.” They are not averages of published information, since judgment was used in arriving at some of the values in the hope these values will be realistic for use in formulating cattle and sheep diets.

New crop varieties usually result in nutrient composition changes. Genetically modified crops will result in feeds with generally improved nutrient content and availability, and/or decreased anti-nutrient factors.

Chemical constituents vs. biological attributes of feeds

Feeds can be chemically analyzed for many things that may or may not be related to the response of an animal. Thus, in the table beginning on page 56, certain chemical constituents are shown. The response of cattle and sheep, however, can be termed the biological response to the feed that is a function of its chemical composition and the ability of the animal to derive useful nutrient value from the feed. The latter relates to the digestibility or availability of a nutrient in the feed for absorption into the body, and its ultimate efficiency of use depends upon the nutrient status of the animal and the productive or physiological function it is performing. Thus, ground fence posts or shelled corn may have the same gross energy value, but have markedly different useful energy value (TDN or net energy) when consumed by the animal.

Therefore, biological attributes of a feed have much greater meaning in predicting the productive response of animals, but are more difficult to precisely determine because of the interaction between the feed's chemical composition and the animal's digestive and metabolic capabilities. Biological attributes of feeds are more laborious and costly to determine, and are more variable than chemical constituents. They are generally more predictive, however, since they relate to the animal's response to the feed or diet.

Sources of table information

Several sources of information were used in arriving at the “typical values” shown in the table. Where information was not available, a reasonable estimate was made from similar feeds or stage of maturity wherever possible. Where zeros appear, the amount is so small it can be considered insignificant in practical diet formulation. Blanks indicate that the value is unknown.

Using information contained in the table

Feed names: The most obvious or commonly used feed names are used in the table. Feeds designated as “fresh” are feeds that are grazed or fed as fresh-cut materials.

Dry matter: Typical dry matter (DM) values are shown, but the moisture content of feeds can vary greatly. Thus, DM content can be the biggest reason for variation in feed composition on an “as-fed” basis. For this reason, chemical constituents and biological attributes of feeds shown are on a DM basis. Since DM can vary greatly, and one of the factors regulating total feed intake is the DM content of feeds, diet formulation on a DM basis is more sound than using “as-fed” basis. To convert a value to an “as-fed” basis, multiply the decimal equivalent of the DM content times the compositional value shown in the table.

Energy: The table lists four measures of the energy value of feeds. TDN (total digestible nutrients) is shown because there are more determined TDN values, and it's been the standard system for expressing the energy value of feeds for cattle and sheep. There are several technical problems with TDN, however. For one, the digestibility of crude fiber (CF) may be higher than for nitrogen-free extract (NFE) in certain feeds. TDN also overestimates the energy value of roughages compared to concentrates in producing animals. Some argue that since energy isn't measured in pounds or percent, TDN isn't a valid energy measure. This, however, is more of a scientific argument than a criticism of TDN's predictive value.

Digestible energy (DE) values are not included in the table. There is a constant relationship between TDN and DE in cattle and sheep; DE (Mcal/cwt.) can be calculated by multiplying the %TDN content by 2. The ability of TDN and DE to predict animal performance is equal.

Interest in using net energy (NE) in feed evaluation was renewed with the development of the California Net Energy System. This is due to the improved predictability of results depending on whether feed energy is being used for maintenance (NEm), growth (NEg) or lactation (NEl). The major problem in using these NE values is predicting feed intake, and thus the proportion of feed that will be used for maintenance and growth. Some only use NEg, but this suffers the equal but opposite criticism mentioned for TDN; NEg will overestimate the feeding value of concentrates relative to roughages.

The average of the two NE values can be used, but this would be true only for cattle and sheep eating twice their maintenance energy requirement. The most accurate way to use these NE values to formulate diets is to use the NEm value plus a multiplier times the NEg value, all divided by one plus the multiplier. The multiplier is the level of feed intake relative to maintenance. For example, if 700-lb. cattle are expected to eat 18 lbs. of DM, 8 lbs. of which will be required for maintenance, the diet's NE value would be: NE = [NEm + (10/8)(NEg)]/[1 + (10/8)].

Such a calculation can be easily introduced into computer programs designed to formulate diets and predict performance.

In deciding on the energy system to use, there is no question on NE's theoretical superiority over TDN in predicting animal performance. But this superiority is lost if only NEg is used to formulate diets. If NE is used, some combination of NEm and NEg is required. NEl values are also shown, but few have actually been determined. NEl values are similar to NEm values except for very high and low energy feeds.

Click to view table (.pdf)

Story continued on next page >

Click to view table (.pdf)

Protein: Crude protein (CP) values are shown for each feed, which are Kjeldahl nitrogen times 100/16, or 6.25, since proteins contain 16% nitrogen on average. CP doesn't give any information on the actual protein and non-protein nitrogen (NPN) content of a feed.

Digestible protein (DP) has been included in many feed composition tables. But because of the contribution of microbial and body protein to the protein in feces, DP is more misleading than CP. One can estimate DP from the CP content of the diet fed to cattle or sheep by the following equation: %DP = 0.9(%CP) - 3, where %DP and %CP are the diet values on a DM basis.

Undegradable intake protein (UIP; rumen “by-pass” or escape protein) values are shown. This value represents the percent of CP passing through the rumen without degradation by rumen microorganisms. Degradable intake protein (DIP) is the percent of CP that is degraded in the rumen and is equal to 100 minus UIP. Like other biological attributes, these values are not constant. UIP values on many feeds have not been determined, and reasonable estimates are difficult to make.

How should these values be used to improve the predictability of animal performance when fed various feeds? Generally, DIP can supply CP up to 6% of the diet. If the required CP in the diet exceeds 6% of the DM, all CP above this amount should be UIP. In other words, if the final diet is to contain 13% CP, 6 of the 13 percentage units, or 46% of the CP, should be UIP. Once the relationships between UIP and DIP have been better quantified, CP requirements may be lowered, especially at higher CP levels. For diets high in rumen fermentable carbohydrate, DIP requirements may determine the total CP required in the diet.

Crude, acid detergent and neutral detergent fiber: After more than 125 years, crude fiber (CF) is declining in use as a measure of poorly digested carbohydrates in feeds. The major problem with CF is that variable amounts of lignin, which isn't digestible, are removed in the CF procedure. In the old scheme, the remaining carbohydrates (nitrogen-free extract or NFE) were thought to be more digestible than CF, despite many feeds having higher CF digestibility than NFE. One reason CF remained in the analytical scheme was its apparent requirement for the TDN calculation.

Improved analytical procedures for fiber have been developed, namely acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF). ADF is related to feed digestibility, and NDF is somewhat related to voluntary intake and the availability of net energy. Both of these measures relate more directly to predicted animal performance, and thus are more valuable than CF. Lignification of NDF, however, alters the availability of surface area to fiber-digesting rumen microorganisms; lignin, therefore, may be added to future tables.

Recently, effective NDF (eNDF) has been used to better describe the dietary fiber function in high-concentrate, feedlot-type diets. While eNDF is defined as the percent of NDF that is retained on a screen similar in size to particles that will pass from the rumen, this value is further modified based on feed density and degree of hydration. Rumen pH is correlated with dietary eNDF when diets contain less than 26% eNDF. Thus, when formulating high-concentrate diets, including eNDF helps prevent acidosis in the rumen. In feedlot diets, the recommended eNDF levels range from 5-20% depending on bunk management, inclusion of ionophores, digestion of NDF and/or microbial protein synthesis in the rumen. Estimated eNDF values are shown for many feeds. These should be modified depending on the degree of feed processing (chopping, grinding, pelleting, flaking) and hydration (fresh forage, silages, high moisture grains) if these feed forms are not specified in the table.

Ether extract: Ether extract (EE) shows the crude fat content of the feed.

Minerals: Values are shown for only certain minerals. Calcium (Ca) and phosphorus (P) are important minerals to consider in most feeding situations. Potassium (K) is more important as the concentrate level increases and when NPN is substituted for intact protein in the diet.

Sulfur (S) also becomes more important as the NPN level increases in the diet. High dietary S levels compounded by high S levels in drinking water can be detrimental, however. Zinc (Zn) is shown because it is less variable and more generally near a deficient level in cattle and sheep diets. Chlorine (Cl) is of increasing interest for its role in dietary acid-base relationships.

The level of many other trace minerals in feeds is largely determined by the level in the soil on which the feeds are grown, or other environmental factors that preclude showing a single value. Iodine and selenium are required nutrients that may be deficient in many diets, yet their level in a feed is more related to the conditions under which the feed is grown than to a characteristic of the feed itself. Trace mineralized salt and trace mineral premixes are generally used to supplement trace minerals; their use is encouraged where deficiencies exist.

Vitamins: Vitamins are not included in the table. The only vitamin of general practical importance in cattle and sheep feeding is the vitamin A value (vitamin A and carotene) in feeds. This depends largely on maturity and conditions at harvest, and the length and conditions during storage. Thus, it is probably unwise to rely entirely on harvested feeds as a source of vitamin A value. Where roughages contain good green color or are being fed as immature, fresh forages, such as pasture, there will probably be sufficient vitamin A value to meet animal requirements. Other vitamins, if required, should be supplied as supplements.

Future table revisions

A feed composition table is of value only if it's relatively complete, contains feeds commonly fed and is constantly updated. I welcome suggestions and compositional data to keep this table useful to the cattle and sheep industry. When sending compositional data, adequately describe the feed, indicate the DM or moisture content, and if the analytical values are on an “as-fed” or DM basis, and indicate the number of samples analyzed.

Since 1957, Rod Preston taught and conducted animal nutrition research in the areas of protein, minerals, growth and body composition, as well as cattle feeding research on the energy value of feeds, growth enhancers and nutrition management.

He was a member of the NRC Committee on Animal Nutrition and president of the American Society of Animal Science. He retired as Texas Tech University emeritus professor, was Horn Distinguished Professor and held the Thornton Endowed Chair. Contact him at 191 Columbia Court, Pagosa Springs, CO, 81147-7650; or

Distiller's Grains

Because of the increasing amounts of distiller's grains (DG) for livestock feeding driven by the expansion in ethanol production, some comment on its feeding value is warranted.

DG is a byproduct feed that's been available for a long time. The name came from the fact it's a byproduct of the whiskey and other liquor-distilling industries. It was common practice at these plants for the spent grains to be conveyed to a feedlot “out back,” where cattle consumed the distillery slop free-choice. Not much attention was given to its nutrient content. What's different today is the massive quantities of DG being produced by the expanding, fuel-driven ethanol industry.

About 28% of the dry weight of corn (or other grains) entering an ethanol plant — depending on the plant's efficiency for converting corn starch into ethanol — remains as spent grains. The solubles remaining after ethanol distillation are often added back to the spent grains, in which case the product is called distiller's grains with solubles (DGS). Both DG and DGS can be fed in the wet or dried form.

Both of these byproducts are good feeds for cattle and sheep and can be good buys, depending on transportation and drying costs.

How should their nutrient composition be evaluated?

  • The energy value of DG and DGS is higher than corn. At first glance, this may seem impossible but the fat content of corn grain is concentrated in DG and DGS (4.3% vs. 10-11%, dry matter [DM] basis). Since fat has 2.25 times the energy value of carbohydrates, this is one explanation for the higher energy value.

  • The fiber in corn is also concentrated (2% vs. 8%, DM basis). However, since corn grain fiber isn't lignified, it's readily digested in the rumen.

  • Trials where the energy value of DG and DGS was evaluated in cattle have given inconsistent results. Some values were higher than expected, even after considering the above, whereas others were in line with expected values. There's probably an interaction or associative effect with other dietary ingredients that gives variable results, and isn't fully understood. The energy values shown in the accompanying table are conservative.

  • The protein in DG and DGS is also concentrated, compared to corn grain (9% vs. 30-31%, DM basis), making these feeds a good source of protein. The protein form is unique in that a sizeable amount passes through the rumen as undegraded intake protein (UIP). However, with cattle diets high in grain, especially processed grain (e.g. steam-flaked grain), degradable intake protein may be limiting.

    Also, the UIP value is very dependent on the drying conditions if DG or DGS are dried. Some indication of the drying conditions can be determined by the acid detergent fiber or neutral detergent fiber insoluble nitrogen (ADIN or NDIN, respectively). If a large proportion of the protein is tied up with fiber through the Maillard reaction (e.g., ADIN as a percentage of crude protein greater than 25%), chances are a large proportion of this protein won't be digested.

    Like corn, the lysine content in the protein of DG and DGS is proportionately low. If the amino acid balance of the UIP is important to the animal, these byproduct feeds may require bypass lysine supplementation for efficient use. This hasn't been quantified, however.

  • The mineral content of DG and DGS is also concentrated compared to corn grain. This is true for phosphorus, potassium and sulfur (S). This can be advantageous, although the higher S content can be a problem depending on the S content of the other diet ingredients and the drinking water.

One situation where these byproduct feeds have unique feeding value is for beef cows and stocker cattle on high-roughage diets or poor-quality range/pasture. Because the remaining carbohydrate in these byproduct feeds is non-lignified fiber, it's slowly fermented in the rumen and therefore doesn't depress the intake of roughage compared to supplements containing starch (e.g., grain).
Rod Preston

Click to view table (.pdf)

TAGS: Feed Nutrition