Feeding Value of Field Pea and Hull-less Oat in Growing Calf Diets

Chip Poland and Doug Landblom
Dickinson Research Extension Center
North Dakota State University


Abstract
Two studies were used to evaluate the feeding value of field pea (Pisum sativum 'Trapper') and hull-less oat (Avena sativa 'Paul') in backgrounding calf diets. In the first study, dietary treatments included a control diet and two diets where a portion of the barley (Hordeum vulgare) and soybean (Glycine max) oil meal (SBM) of the control diet was replaced by either oat or pea. Average daily gain (P=.66) was not affected by dietary treatment. However, calves fed the control and pea diets had higher dry matter intakes (DMI; P<.05) than calves fed the oat diet. Subsequently, feed efficiency (gain/feed; P=.1) was improved in the calves that were fed the oat diet. In the second experiment, dietary treatments included a control diet, two diets where a portion of the control diet was replaced by either pea or oat and one diet where pea and oat were combined as a replacement. Average daily gain (P=.84) was not affected by dietary treatment. Calves consuming the control diet had higher DMI (P<.01) than diets containing either pea or oat, while the DMI of the combined diet was intermediate. Although differences were detected in intake and not in gain measurements, there was only a tendency toward differences in feed efficiency (FE; P=.17) due to dietary treatments. Field pea and hull-less oat are suitable substitutes for barley and soybean oil meal, when replacement is on an equivalent protein basis in backgrounding calf diets. This article is only available online at http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndagres/ndagres.htm

Impact — Results indicate that producers can establish a relative economic feeding value for pea and hull-less oat based upon their nutritional composition and the market price of barley and soybean meal.
Audience — Grain growers, cattle feeders, grain dealers, feed distributors, nutritional consultants and researchers.

Keywords
Beef cattle, pulse, net energy, Paul oat

Introduction
Alternative crops are playing a greater role in North Dakota field crop production. Annual legumes complement crop rotations by expanding the number of crops available to small-grain producers who want to avoid problems associated with continuous small-grain cropping (Peel, 1998). Field pea (Pisum sativum), an annual legume, can be grown in small-grain rotations in North Dakota (Peel, 1998). Since pea was first cultivated 8,000 years ago, it has indirectly been valued for its nutrient composition as a food for humans (Hickling, 1994).

Common oat (Avena sativa) threshes with the hull intact and is lower in energy and less dense than other feed grains (Ensminger and Olentine, 1978). Oat groat (oat grain minus the hull) is comparable to corn in feeding value (NRC, 1984), but is usually expensive. Oat hull is less palatable and lower in nutritive value than oat groat (Ensminger and Olentine, 1978). Because of these characteristics, conventional oat, oat hull and oat groat are not widely used in the feeding of feedlot cattle ( Johnson and Boyles, 1991). Hull-less varieties of oat are accessible (Peel, 1997), but grain availability has been limited. Because of a reduced hull concentration, hull-less oat may have a feeding value similar to oat groat (e.g. higher digestibility, higher protein, lower fiber). Several hull-less oat varieties are being developed in the U.S. and Canada. 'Paul' oat is a hull-less oat variety that was recently developed in North Dakota (McMullen et al., 1997)

Pea and hull-less varieties of oat have not been widely fed to livestock in North Dakota. As the acreage for these crops expands, producers are looking for alternative markets for their grain. Chemical composition of these two types of grain suggests that both crops have potential for use as livestock feed (Table 1). Preliminary observations suggest that in North Dakota pea is palatable and readily consumed by cattle (V. Anderson, personal communication) and in South Dakota, when pea is used as a protein supplement, there is a tendency for feed efficiency to be improved in finishing cattle (C. Birkelo, personal communication). Hull-less oat also improves feed efficiency when used in growing and/or finishing cattle diets (Johnson et al., 1995; Anderson et al., 1997; Schimek et al., 1997). Little research has evaluated the feeding value of either pea or hull-less oat in growing beef cattle diets. Establishing feeding values is essential if these grains are to be used in least-cost ration formulations.

Cattle feeding studies were designed to evaluate the potential of 'Trapper' pea and 'Paul' oat for use as feedstuffs for weaned calves. Studies involved substituting a portion of the barley (Hordeum vulgare) and soybean (Glycine max) oil meal (SBM) in a control diet with test feeds (pea and hull-less oat). In addition to documenting animal performance and feed efficiencies, treatments were designed to establish relative net energy values for test feeds. This is vital information for the future use of the these feed grains in diet formulations for cattle.

Materials and Methods
Two experiments were conducted to meet the following objectives:

1. Determine the effect of including pea or hull-less oat in backgrounding diets for weaned calves on animal performance and feed efficiency.

2. Establish relative net energy concentrations for pea and hull-less oat.

Experiments were conducted at the Manning Ranch facility of the Dickinson Research Extension Center. Twelve feedlot pens (3072 ft², with 16 ft of fence-line bunk space, per pen) were used in each experiment. Each pen was equipped with a slatted-board windbreak in the northwest corner and water was provided free-choice by automatic, frost-free waterers.

The first experiment (Exp 1; fall 1995) was designed to evaluate the effect of feeding pea ('Trapper') or hull-less oat ('Paul') on the performance of early weaned calves. Forty-eight crossbred calves were blocked by sex (steer or heifer) and weight (heavy or light) and randomly allotted within group into 12 pens (three pens per blocking combination). Pens within group were assigned to one of three dietary treatments. Diets were formulated to meet or exceed the nutritional requirements of a medium frame steer calf gaining 2.6 lb of liveweight per day (NRC, 1984; Bandyk et al., 1994). Treatments included a control diet (CONT1; approximately 70% concentrate and 25% ground oat hay in a total mixed ration) and two diets where a portion of barley and SBM in the concentrate of the control diet was replaced by one of two test grains (Table 2). The test grains included pea (FPEA1) and hull-less oat (HOAT1). The fat from hull-less oat in the second test diet was formulated not to exceed 5% of diet dry matter. All feed grains were processed in a roller mill prior to mixing diets. Calves were started on an all forage diet and the grain portion of the diet gradually increased until the desired level of grain was achieved. All diets included lasalocid (Bovatec^®) as an ionophore (40.8 g/ton of diet dry matter). Calves were fed test diets ad libitum for 63 days. Animals were weighed on two consecutive days at the beginning and end of the test feeding period to calculate average body weights (BW) and average daily gain (ADG).

Feed ingredients were sampled for nutrient analysis at the beginning of the experiment. Chemical analysis of feed grains included dry matter (131°F), crude protein (AOAC, 1990), ADF (AOAC, 1990) and NDF (Robertson and Van Soest, 1982). Forages were analyzed for the same nutrients using near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS; Iowa Testing Laboratories, Inc., Eagle Grove, IA). Composition of salt (NRC, 1984) and supplement (Feedlot No. 411B, Vigortone Ag Products, Inc., Cedar Rapids, IA.) were assumed to be as reported. Feed ingredient usage per diet and individual pen deliveries were recorded daily. Dietary chemical composition (Table 2) was computed as a weighted average of the product of ingredient composition and average feed ingredient usage. Feed bunks were cleaned and feed refusals weighed and subsampled at the end of each week. Weekly feed refusals were dried (131°F) and dry matter intake (DMI) calculated as the difference between dry matter delivered and refused.

The second experiment (Exp 2; winter 1996) was designed to evaluate dietary treatments similar to those in Exp 1 in older, later weaned calves. The basic design and protocol were similar to those used in Exp 1. Crossbred heifer calves (n=72) were blocked by weight and randomly allotted within group into one of 12 pens. Pens within group were assigned to one of four dietary treatments. A higher forage diet (39% corn silage, 25% ground oat hay and 33% concentrate on a dry matter basis) was fed as a total mixed ration. Diets were formulated to meet or exceed the nutritional requirements of a medium frame hiefer gaining approximately 2.3 lb of liveweight per day (NRC, 1984; Banduk et al., 1994). Dietary treatments (Table 3) were similar to those used in Exp. 1 (control, CONT2; pea, FPEA2; hull-less oat, HOAT2), with the addition of one test diet that contained both pea and hull-less oat (COMB2). All diets included lasalocid (Bovatec^®) as an ionophore (27.8 g/ton of diet dry matter). Calves were fed the test diests ad libitum for 63 days.

Average BW and ADG were used to estimate net energy retention of calves over a test period. Energy retention (calculated from shrunk BW and ADG; NRC 1984) and actual dry matter intake were used to calculate the net energy (NE) concentration of each diet (Zinn, 1987). Net energy concentration (NRC, 1984) of dry rolled barley and SBM was assumed and the energy concentration of test grains expressed relative to barley and SBM. The combined pea/hull-less oat diet was used to test the relative energy concentration calculations.

Data from both experiments were analyzed as randomized complete block designs using general linear modeling (PROC GLM) procedures (Freund et al., 1986). Significant (P less than or equal to.1) effects were evaluated using a Bonferroni t-test. The overall experimentwise error rate was set at .10. The Pdiff option of SAS was used to make individual t comparisons. In Exp 1, no interactions (P>.1) were observed between sex and dietary treatment.

Results
Animal performance. The control diet in Exp 1 was formulated to contain .54 Mcal NEg/lb and 13.5% CP (Table 2). Although steer calves had higher ADG (P<.08) than heifers, DMI (P=.93) and feed efficiency (FE, gain/feed; P=.25) were not affected by sex (Table 4). Feed conversion (feed/gain) averaged 5.6 in this experiment.

Initial BW (P<.05) was affected by dietary treatment group (Table 4); however, final BW (P=.80) and ADG (P=.66) were not affected by dietary treatment and averaged 3.09 lb. Dry matter intake (P<.05) was affected by dietary treatment. Pens of calves that were fed HOAT1 had lower DMI than calves that were fed either CONT1 or FPEA1. Dry matter intake was similar between calves fed CONT1 or FPEA1. Due to differences in DMI with similar gains, FE (P=.10) was affected by dietary treatment. Calves fed HOAT1 had the best efficiency, while FE in calves fed CONT1 and FPEA1 did not differ. Calves consuming hull-less oat required .75 to 1.0 pounds less feed to produce a pound of liveweight gain.

The control diet in Exp 2 was formulated to contain .46 Mcal NEg/lb and 11.5% CP (Table 3). By design, initial weight block affected initial (P<.01) BW (Table 5). Average daily gain (P=.84) was not affected by initial weight block. Final BW (P<.01) and FE (P=.08) were also affected by initial weight block. Final BW reflected differences in initial BW, while the lighter initial weight block of calves tended to be more efficient than the medium or heavy initial weight blocks. Feed conversion averaged 7.6.

Initial (P=.39) and final (P=.38) BW and ADG (P=.36) were not affected by dietary treatment (Table 5). Dry matter intake (P<.01) was affected by dietary treatment. Calves fed CONT2 had the highest DMI. Intake of FPEA2 and HOAT2 were the lowest, while intake of COMB2 was intermediate. Effects of dietary treatment on intake coupled with similar gains were not large enough to result in significant differences in FE (P=.17). However, there was a tendency for calves consuming FPEA2, HOAT2 and COMB2 to be numerically more efficient when compared to CONT2 (Table 5). Calves fed diets containing pea and/or hull-less oat tended to require .9 to 1.3 pounds less feed to produce a pound of BW gain.

Net energy concentration. Calculated and estimated NE concentration for diets fed in Exp 1 and Exp 2 are shown in Table 6. In both experiments, estimated NE concentration (calculated from actual intake and animal performance) was approximately 8.5% greater than calculated values (assuming known concentration in each feedstuff). Estimated NE concentrations for pea and hull-less oat are also shown in Table 6. Estimates for hull-less oat were numerically similar between experiments and averaged 1.17 and .84 Mcal/lb for NEm and NEg, respectively. Concentrations relative to pea were not similar across experiments. Estimated NE concentrations of pea were increased 123 and 163% in Exp 2 when compared to Exp 1. Estimated dietary NE concentration of COMB2 was numerically similar to FPEA2 and HOAT2.

Discussion
In terms of cattle performance, these data suggest that pea and hull-less oat are suitable substitutes for barley and SBM when concentrate replacement is on an equivalent protein basis and fed in backgrounding type diets. Average daily gains were not affected by the inclusion of either of the test grains. Other studies have also reported similar ADG when hull-less oat replaced barley in growing calf diets (Johnson et al., 1995; Anderson et al., 1997). Poland and Faller (1997) and Schimek et al. (1997) reported linear decreases in ADG when hull-less oat was included in lamb (barley control) and steer (corn control) finishing diets, respectively. Johnson et al. (1995) and Anderson et al. (1997) reported increases in ADG when hull-less oat replaced barley in cattle diets. Many of these differences between control and hull-less oat containing diets in ADG seem to be related to changes in DMI, type of grain processing and/or base grain in the control diet.

Johnson et al. (1995) reported no differences in DMI when hull-less oat was included in backgrounding calf diets and compared to coarsely ground barley. An increase in ADG was only observed in one experiment where oat was also coarsely ground. When whole hull-less oat was fed, no differences in DMI or ADG were observed. Other studies have reported decreases in DMI when diets contained various levels of hull-less oat (Poland and Faller, 1997; Schimek et al., 1997). Intake and ADG were closely correlated when whole hull-less oat was compared to whole barley in growing lambs (Poland and Faller, 1997) and when ground hull-less oat was compared to ground corn in finishing cattle (Schimek et al., 1997). Only one study (Anderson et al., 1997) documented a decrease in DMI with a corresponding increase in ADG. In this study, dry-rolled hull-less oat was compared to dry-rolled barley. The disparity between DMI and gain occurred during a fnishing phase (last 103 days of 181 days on feed). During a grower phase (0-78 days), DMI was decreased while ADG was unaffected by level of hull-less oat in the diet. Dry matter intake was also decreased with the inclusion of hull-less oat in the present experiments with no change in ADG.

Bauer (1997) suggested that a decrease in intake can be expected when diets containing hull-less oat are compared with diets containing barley or corn. Three factors were cited as possibly contributing to this phenomenon. These included ruminal acidosis, dietary fat level and protein degradation or supply. Whether any or all of these factors contributed to the reduced intakes of hull-less oat containing diets in these experiments is unclear. When diets are low in roughage or where roughages are finely ground, acidosis can occur (Fahey and Berger, 1988). The oat hay used in both of these experiments was ground using a 2 in screen prior to mixing in diets. Although hay particle size was not measured, visual observations did not suggest that forage particle size would create an acidotic problem. Fat supplementation above 6% of diet dry matter can reduce digestibility of other feed ingredients in the rumen, which may in turn lead to a decrease in dry matter intake (Bauer, 1997). However, the total fat concentration of diets fed (Tables 2 and 3) in these experiments did not exceed 6%. Deficiencies of ruminally-available protein (DIP) and metabolizable protein supply (MP) were also implicated as possibly producing a reduction in dry matter intake in hull-less oat containing diets (Bauer, 1997). An evaluation (Bauer, 1997) of hull-less oat containing diets using a nutrient requirment model (NRC, 1996) to assess the adequacy of DIP and MP supply did not indicate that either of these were consistently related to depressions in dry matter intake in the diets used in these experiments.

Similar ADG and decreased DMI resulted in improved FE when hull-less oat replaced barley. Improvements in FE with the inclusion of hull-less oat in barley-based diets have been previous reported (Johnson et al., 1995; Anderson et al., 1997). Feed efficiency did not differ when barley was replaced by whole (unprocessed) hull-less oat (Johnson et al., 1995; Poland and Faller, 1997) or when corn was replaced by ground hull-less oat (Schimek et al., 1997). Improved FE associated with diets containing processed hull-less oat suggest their net energy concentrations exceed those containing barley and SBM (NRC, 1984).

A separate explanation for the improved feed efficiencies of hull-less oat containing diets relates to a negative relationship between level of intake and digestibility (Merchen, 1988) or efficiency of nutrient use (Merchen and Bourquin, 1994). Intake effects on diet digestibility are much more pronounced with mixed diets than with diets consisting of single feedstuffs (Merchen, 1988). In mixed diets, decreases of approximately 4% for each unit increase in DMI have been reported. A unit of intake (MM) equals level of DMI necessary to achieve zero energy balance or maintenace. Depressions in digestibility due to increasing DMI are thought to result from increased rate of passage of digesta through the digestive tract (Merchen, 1988). However, the depression in digestibility due to increased intake may not be of major importance in a growing-finishing animal in which DMI rarely exceeds 3 MM, but can become quite meaningful in a lactating dairy cow where DMI may exceed 5 MM (Ferrell, 1988). Generally, in diets of sufficient quality and consumed at approximately 3 MM, a correction of metabolizable energy concentratioin due to feeding level is not necessary (Ferrell, 1988). Dry matter intake of calves consuming control diets (Tables 4 and 5) equated to 2.75 and 3.09 MM for experiments 1 and 2, respectively. Average depressions in DMI between the hull-less oat and control diets were 1.7 (.27 MM) and 3.9 (.48 MM) lb for experiments 1 and 2, respectively. Although an effect of DMI on diet digestibility was not determined in these experiments, the changes in DMI were not seen to be large enough to account for the observed improvements in FE for diets containing hull-less oat.

Average NEm and NEg values for hull-less oat grain were 1.17 and .84 Mcal/lb, respectively (see Table 6). If these values are adjusted for experimental bias and fat concentration (Table 7), the net energy concentration of hull-less oat is similar to oat groat and numerically greater than corn (NRC, 1984). Until additional data is collected, assuming that the net energy concentration of hull-less oat equals that of oat groat seems reasonable. Thus, conservative estimates of the NEm and NEg value of hull-less oat in growing calf diets are 1.07 and .75, respectively. When NE concentration of test grains in Exp 2 were assumed, the NE concentration of COMB2 (.78 and .51 Mcal/lb for NEm and NEg, respectively) was calculated to be similar to the dietary NE of FPEA2 (.78 and .50) and HOAT2 (.78 and .51). This similarity was expected given the relative similarity of the estimated NE concentration of FPEA2, HOAT2 and COMB2 (Table 6).

The differential response of pea containing diets between these two experiments warrants further work aimed at understanding the nutritional benefits of pea as a feed grain for growing calves. It is difficult to compare results across experiments. Experiments differed in calf sex, initial age/weight, and base diet offered. Nonetheless, an interesting observation is that pea seemed to perform better in a higher forage diet (Exp 2) .

The protein in pea is highly degradable in the rumen (DIP, 78% of CP; Hickling, 1994). Thus, pea protein may be an excellent supplemental source of DIP at times when a base diet is determined to be deficient in ruminally-available nitrogen. In South Dakota (C. Birkelo, personal communication), pea improved FE in finishing cattle consuming a high-concentrate, corn grain based diet. Corn grain is relatively high in energy, low in CP (relative to energy) and low in DIP (NRC, 1996). Pea may have alleviated an inherent DIP deficiency in the base diet, allowing for an overall improvement in diet digestibility. Personal observations using a nutrient requirement for beef cattle (NRC, 1996) suggests that forage-based diets are typically first-limiting in DIP. Whether DIP supply from pea containing diets can explain the enhancement in FE seen in Exp 2 is speculative. Nonetheless, given the abundance of forage produced in northern Great Plains, this possibility needs further study.

Conclusion/Implications of this research
Pea and hull-less oat are suitable substitutes for barley and SBM when replacement is on an equivalent protein basis in growing calf diets. The improved feed efficiencies associated with those diets containing hull-less oat suggest the net energy concentrations for this particular feed grain exceeds those of barley. Conservative estimates of NEm and NEg in Paul oat are 1.07 and .75, respectively.

Additional/future research needs resulting from this project
The differential response of pea containing diets between these two experiments warrants further work aimed at understanding the nutritional benefits of pea as a feedstuff for cattle. Effects of processing on the feeding value of these feed grains was not evaluated in these studies and as yet needs to be determined.

References
Anderson, V.L, M.L. Bauer, J.S. Caton, P. Berg and D.H. Dhuyvetter. 1997. An evaluation of reciprocal levels of hull-less oats and barley in diets for growing and finishing steers. Carrington Res. Ext. Center Field Day Beef and Bison Res. Report. pp20-23. (http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/carringt/97beef/art5.htm).

AOAC. 1990. Official methods of Analysis. Vol. I (15^th Ed.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA.

Bandyk, C., D. Simms and G. Kuhl. 1994. Grower, ration balancing software for growing beef cattle - Version 2.nd. Kansas State University, Manhatten.

Ensminger, M.E. and C.G. Olentine. 1978. Feeds and nutrition - complete. The Ensminger Publishing Company. Clovis, CA.

Fahey, G.C. and L.L. Berger. Carbohydrate nutrition of ruminants. In: D.C. Church (ed.) The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. pp294.

Ferrell, C.L. 1988. Energy metabolism. In: D.C. Church (ed.) The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. pp257.

Freund, R. J., R. C. Littell, and P. C. Spector. 1986. SAS system for linear models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

Hickling, D. 1994. Canadian peas: Feed industry guide. Canadian Special Crops Association (Winnipeg, MB) and Western Canada Pulse Growers Association (Regina, SK). pp21.

Johnson, J., D. Dhuyvetter, B. Kreft, and K. Ringwall. 1995. A comparison of naked oats to barley when fed in a grower diet to beef calves. North Dakota cow/calf conference and beef cattle and range research report. December 1 and 2, Bismarck.

Johnson, L. and S. Boyles. 1991. Oats as a feed for beef cattle. Extension Bulletin, AS-1020. North Dakota State University. (http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/ansci/beef/as1020w.htm).

McMullen, M.S., D.C. Doehlert and J.D. Miller. 1997. Registration of Paul oat. Crop Sci. 37:1016.

Merchen, N.R. 1988. Digestion, absorption and excretion in ruminants. In: D.C. Church (ed.) The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. pp190.

Merchen, N.R. and L.D. Bourquin, 1994. Processes of digestion and factors influencing digestion of forage-based diets by ruminants. In: G.C. Fahey (ed.) Forage Quality, Evaluation and Utilization. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. pp581.

NRC. 1984. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle (6^th Ed.). National Academy Press.

NRC. 1996. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle (7^th Ed.). National Academy Press.

Peel, M.D. 1997. 1997 North Dakota Barley, Oat, Rye and Flax variety performance descriptions. Extension Bulletin, A-1049. North Dakota State Univeristy. (http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/plantsci/smgrains/a1049w.htm).

Peel, M.D. 1998. Crop rotations for increased productivity. Extension Bulletin, EB-48 (revised). North Dakota State University. (http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/plantsci/crops/eb48-1.htm).

Poland, W., and T.C. Faller. 1997. Whole Paul oat as a feedstuff for sheep. Sheep Day Report, Hettinger Research/Extension Center, pp1-4.

Robertson, J.B. and P.J. Van Soest. 1982. The detergent system of analysis and its application to human foods. In: W.P.T. James and O. Theander (ed.). The Analysis of Dietary Fiber. Marcell Dekker, NY. p138.

Schimek, C., M. Bauer, J. Caton, V. Anderson, D. Dhuyvetter and P. Berg. 1997. Influence of hull-less oats on feedlot performance and carcass characteristics in beef steers. An evaluation of reciprocal levels of hull-less oats and barley in diets for growing and finishing steers. Carrington Res. Ext. Center Field Day Beef and Bison Res. Report. pp24-27. (http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/carringt/97beef/art6.htm).

Zinn, R. A. 1987. Influence of lasalocid and monensin plus tylosin on comparative feeding value of steam-flaked versus dry-rolled corn in diets for feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 65:256-266.

Project Background

Authors
C. Poland, Area Livestock Specialist
Dickinson Research Extension Center
North Dakota State University
Dickinson, North Dakota
wpoland@ndsuext.nodak.edu
www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/dickinso

D. Landblom, Animal Scientist - Swine
Dickinson Research Extension Center
North Dakota State University
Dickinson, North Dakota
dlandblo@ndsuext.nodak.edu
www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/dickinso

Corresponding author
C. Poland

Primary location of research
Dickinson Research Extension Center, North Dakota State University, Dickinson, North Dakota

Funding sources
North Dakota Agricultural Products Utilization Commission
North Dakota Dry Pea and Lentil Association
North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station

Additional credits the authors need to give
L. Tisor and G. Ottmar for animal care, diet processing and data collection. J. Kolar for manuscript preparation assistance.

Table of Contents – Summer 1998