Pea forage

Datasheet

Description

Click on the "Nutritional aspects" tab for recommendations for ruminants, pigs, poultry, rabbits, horses, fish and crustaceans

Common names

Pea forage, pea silage, pea hay, pea vines
Pea crop residue, pea straw, pea haulms, pea haulm silage

Species

Pisum sativum L. [Fabaceae]

Synonyms

For a complete list of synonyms, see USDA, 2011 and ILDIS, 2009.

Taxonomic information

Pea taxonomy is complex and debatable. In particular, there is no authoritative and definitive way to classify arvense (field) and hortense (garden) peas. They used to be considered as separate species (Pisum arvense, Pisum hortense) but they are now seen as separate varieties or subspecies of Pisum sativum (Pisum sativum var. arvense, Pisum sativum var. hortense, Pisum sativum subsp. hortense) or as separate varieties of the subspecies Pisum sativum subsp. sativum (Pisum sativum subsp. sativum var. arvense, Pisum sativum subsp. sativum var. sativum) (Martin-Sanz et al., 2011; USDA, 2011).

Related feed(s)

Description

Peas (usually Pisum sativum L.) are one of the four most important legume crops next to soybean, groundnut and beans. They are a particularly important legume grain in temperate areas with numerous food (dry seed, vegetable) and feed (seed, fodder) usages (Muehlbauer et al., 1997). As a forage, peas are a high-yielding, short-term crop with a high protein content (Fraser et al., 2001).

Peas are a rapid-growing herbaceous legume with angular or roundish hollow stems covered with a waxy bloom. The plant has a taproot that can grow as deep as 1 m with numerous lateral roots. Leaves are alternate, compound with 1-3 pairs of leaflets borne on petioles with several pairs of tendrils. Large (up to 10 cm long) leaf-like stipules are inserted at the base of the leaves (FAO, 2011; Muehlbauer et al., 1997; Oelke et al., 1991). The inflorescence is a raceme that bears white, pink or purple flowers. The colour of the flower is an indicator of tannin content in the seed: white-flowered peas produce tannin-free seeds while the seeds of coloured-flowered peas contain tannins (Prolea, 2008). Pods are dehiscent and contain several seeds that may be globular or angled, smooth or wrinkled (FAO, 2011; Muehlbauer et al., 1997).

Pisum sativum has a large genetic diversity. There are winter and spring varieties, leafy and leafless, early- or late-maturing, etc. Seeds can be of varying colour, shape and size. Pea varieties can be classified into garden peas (green peas eaten as vegetables), field peas (dried peas for feed and food) and forage peas, that are grown primarily for forage. An example of the latter varieties is the Austrian Winter pea. However, pea varieties can be multi-purpose. Pea forage can also be used for green manure (Maxted et al., 2001; Oelke et al., 1991).

Pea forage includes several products:

Whole pea crop grown specifically for forage. It may or may not contain pods at different stages of maturity. It can be fed fresh (grazed or green chop), as hay or ensiled.
The crop residues from harvesting field peas, often named pea straw or pea haulms. This dry product contain the stems and leaves left on the field.
The crop residues from harvesting garden peas, often named pea haulms. This fresh product contains the stems and leaves and can be fed fresh or ensiled.

Note that the terms pea straw, pea hay and pea haulms are not always clearly defined.

For forage production, a leafy plant should be favoured because a high leaf-to-stem ratio is associated with a higher nutritional value as the leaves and pods account for the majority of digestible DM (Collins et al., 1995; Pichard et al., 1983). Taller cultivars are also considered more suitable for forage. Nevertheless, as lodging is a plant health and harvest concern in both forage and grain pea types, semi-leafless varieties of peas, which are more erect and allow better light and air penetration, may be desirable (Koivisto et al., 2003).

Distribution

Peas were one of the first cultivated crops around 7000-6000 BC and are thought to have originated from south-western Asia (possibly north-western India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia). Peas would then have spread westwards to Russia, Europe and the Mediterranean Basin but also eastwards to China (Chittaranjan, 2007; Oelke et al., 1991). Production then spread to the Western Hemisphere upon discovery of the New World. Peas are also cultivated in Africa as a winter crop (Messiaen et al., 2006).

Peas grow in a wide range of environments. They can be grown up to an altitude of 1000 m in equatorial areas (and up to 1800-3000 m in Ethiopia) (Messiaen et al., 2006). Peas grow better in relatively cool climates with average temperatures between 7 and 24°C, and in areas with 800-1000 mm annual rainfall, mostly distributed during the early stages of growth (Messiaen et al., 2006; Oelke et al., 1991). They can be found on a wide range of soils from sandy loams to heavy clays provided the soils are well-drained (FAO, 2011). Ideal soil pH is 5.5-6.5. A pH of 7-7.5 may not hamper growth if the soil is not overlimed and prone to manganese deficiency (FAO, 2011; Oelke et al., 1991). Acidic soils, high aluminium soils and waterlogged areas are deleterious to pea growth (Messiaen et al., 2006).

Hot weather and drought stress are particularly damaging to peas during the flowering period (Oelke et al., 1991). Field peas can be grown as a winter crop in warm and temperate areas since pea seedlings have considerable frost resistance. Where winters are too cold, peas can be grown as a spring crop and only require 60 days to bloom and 100 days to mature and dry (Oelke et al., 1991).

Processes

Hay

Due to its relatively high moisture content, pea forage is rarely harvested for hay (Borreani et al., 2007).

Silage

Peas can be made into silage which is the main use for pure-sown stands. They are generally used as a whole-crop for silage as they provide both protein and starch to the diet (Rondahl et al., 2010). At harvest, the stubble height has to be 10 cm above ground level and the cut swath left unturned in order to prevent soil contamination. Some pea cultivars ferment readily. Extensive proteolysis occurs resulting in non-protein nitrogen, notably at early morphological stages (Mustafa et al., 2003). Peas are sometimes wilted in the field to 25-30% DM, before being short-chopped. Inoculation with Lactobacillus plantarum and/or an acid additive can also be applied. Finally, an airtight seal is essential to ensure high-quality silage. Acid additives decrease pH and ammonia N production, and increase lactate and water-soluble carbohydrate contents (Fraser et al., 2001). Wilting and inoculation with Lactobacillus plantarum did not prove to be effective in decreasing proteolysis during pea whole-crop ensiling, but wilting did improve the ensiling process (Rondahl et al., 2010).

Fresh pea haulms from garden pea harvesting can be chopped and made into silage without difficulty. Water can be added if the weather is very hot (Moore, 1941).

Forage management

Yields

Forage pea yields are very variable and may range from 4.9 t DM/ha up to 35.9 t DM/ha, depending on environmental conditions (FAO, 2011; Bilgili et al., 2010).

Optimal harvest time

Forage peas should be harvested at the flowering or flat pod stage in order to maximise yield. Delaying harvesting beyond the flat pod stage results in reduced digestibility and overall feeding value (FAO, 2011). However, harvesting too early may have deleterious effects if the pea crop is intended for silage: harvesting before pod filling increases proteolysis during the first days of ensiling, and neither wilting nor inoculation can help in preventing it (Rondahl et al., 2010). In semi-leafless cultivars the loss of nutritive quality is not as dramatic as in leafed cultivars (Borreani et al., 2007).

Mixed (bi-crop) stands

Peas can be sown with oats or other small-grain cereals for the mutual benefit of both: peas increase the protein and energy content of the stand while the cereal helps to support the peas, which are very sensitive to lodging. Peas, as a legume, also decrease the need for N fertilizer. These mixed stands can either be dried for hay or chopped for silage. Such mixtures used to be quite traditional but have decreased in importance since modern pea cultivars are much less affected by lodging (Anderson et al., 2002; Suttie, 2000). However, among legumes, peas are considered as a very good component for mixtures with cereals in organic farming (Ksiezak et al., 2009). To obtain equal plant populations, it is necessary to sow a seed mixture of 70% peas and 30% cereal grains by weight (Anderson et al., 2002). Mixtures of peas and cereals yield more dry matter but less crude protein than peas alone (Faulkner, 1985).

The major problem is to establish the best time to harvest in order to give the optimum nutritive value without compromising yield. For example, for wheat, the optimum stage could be between early to soft dough, and for peas, at a yellow wrinkly stage (Rondahl, 2004). For an oat/pea mixture, the optimal time of harvest was when peas were at the pod fill stage and the oats were in the late milk to early dough stage (Rondahl et al., 2006). It is very important to respect the respective maturity of both forages in the specific agronomic environment (Anil et al., 1998). The choice of a specific cereal variety could be more important than the choice of the cereal species (oats, barley or wheat) (Rondahl, 2004).

Environmental impact

Agronomic benefits

Peas are much valued in rotations with cereals because their cultivation breaks cereal disease cycles, facilitates weed control and improves soil condition and fertility (Chittaranjan, 2007).

N-fixing legume

Pea crops greatly improve the soil fertility status. Peas are N-fixing legumes that may require seed inoculation with Rhizobium leguminosarum in order to enhance nodulation. Inoculation becomes necessary when soil pH is below 5.7. Pea crops decrease fertilizer requirements of the following crops by 30-50 kg/ha (Muehlbauer et al., 1997). On a 3-year rotation including peas, average N savings were about 140 kg N/ha. However, it is important that the crops following peas undergo succession and cropping practices that limit nitrate losses (Charles et al., 2001).

Nutritional aspects

Potential constraints

Tannins and saponins

Pea forage may contain condensed tannins, depending on the variety. This would apply to whole crop forage of coloured-flowered varieties, including mature seeds (Rondahl, 2004). Pea straw has also been found to contain saponins (Zaza et al., 2009).

Moulds

Pea forage may be subject to moulding, before harvest or during storage. Pea straw should be stored at a minimum of 87% DM to prevent moulding. If moulding occurs, the straw should not be given to animals (Leclerc, 2003).

Defoliant

When defoliant treatments are applied before grain harvesting, a waiting period of 5 days is recommended before harvesting the straw (Leclerc, 2003).

Ruminants

Pea forages are generally rich in protein though less so than other temperate forage legumes such as alfalfa and clover. These forages are also highly variable: forage type, variety, age at harvest and mode of preservation all have a great influence and it is important to assess the protein content of the forage before feeding it to livestock (Leclerc, 2003). One drawback of pea crops is that its protein is highly degradable in the rumen (Mustafa et al., 2000; Wilkins et al., 2000).

Pasture

Cattle and other ruminants can graze pea stands, provided that the usual practices concerning the grazing of pure legume pastures are followed. Animals should not graze peas permanently and for too long each day (maximum 2.5 to 3 hours). Besides, their previous diet should be rich in energy or at least poor in protein. Crude protein in peas is highest at flowering (Brunschwig, 2003b). Pea pasture can be grazed by fattening lambs when the crop has completed its growth and dried out (Göhl, 1982).

Pea hay

Whole-crop pea hay contains 15-20% DM protein, 38-56% DM NDF, 32-39% ADF and about 5% ADL, depending on the stage of maturity. Observed OM digestibility is in the 60-65% range (Neumark, 1970; Hadjipanayiotou et al., 1987; Hayashi et al., 2007). Starch content is extremely variable (5-25% DM), depending on seed maturity (Borreani et al., 2007). Pea hay protein is highly degradable, with an effective degradability that decreases between the bud stage (96%) and the pod formation stage (88%) (Iliev et al., 2002).

There is scarce information about the use of pea hay in ruminants. In an experiment with buffaloes in Nepal, pea hay offered at 1% BW as a supplement to a commercial concentrate, up to a 5:3 hay:concentrate ratio, increased body weight, daily gain, DM intake, milk production and milk fat yield (Hayashi et al., 2007).

Pea silage

Pea silage is considered to be an excellent feed for ruminants, though it has a strong odour (Göhl, 1982). Its nutritive value depends firstly on the pea variety: semi-leafless, short, stiff-stemmed varieties, low in condensed tannins and rich in protein are recommended (Rondahl, 2004). The nutritive value also depends on the stage of maturity of the pea (Cavallarin et al., 2006). At the end of flowering, pea silage has a low starch content (5% DM) and a high OM digestibility (74%) (Børsting et al., 2002). Soluble protein content of pea silage is higher than that of soybean silage, but it is the reverse for neutral (NDICP) and acid (ADICP) detergent insoluble protein levels. Pea silage and soybean silage have a similar rumen degradability of DM (average 69%), crude protein (83%) and NDF (average 35%) (Mustafa et al., 2003).

Dairy cows

Pea silage has been used as a feed for dairy cows with variable results. In cows fed rations containing 50:50 forage:concentrate, pea silage, barley silage and alfalfa silage gave similar dry matter intakes and milk yields. Milk composition was similar for cows fed pea or barley silage. Cows fed pea silage produced milk with a higher fat and a lower protein percentage than those fed alfalfa silage. It was concluded that pea silage can replace barley or alfalfa silage as a forage source for dairy cows in early lactation (Mustafa et al., 2000). When high or low tannin forage pea silages replaced approximately 1.1 kg/d of soybean meal in the diet of mid-late lactation dairy cows, animal performance was unaffected, but N efficiency for milk production was decreased (Sinclair et al., 2009). Less positive results were found when feeding pea silage (67% of diet DM) harvested with immature seeds to dairy cows in mid-lactation: this led to a lower DM intake, milk yield and milk protein yield in comparison to perennial ryegrass silage made with a comparable crude protein content (Børsting et al., 2002).

Sheep

There is scarce data about the use of pea silage for sheep. In one experiment, lambs offered forage pea silage had extremely low live-weight gains during the first 3 weeks, and the trial had to be cancelled. This problem may have been due to mould contamination of the original crop (Marley et al., 2007).

Bi-crop silages

Pea-grass silage may offer a more efficient nutrient utilization due to a possible synchronization of the supply of readily fermentable energy and nitrogen in the rumen (Salawu et al., 2002). Bi-crop silages are ingested at higher levels than grass silages and can save part of the concentrate. They increase N retention and microbial protein synthesis (Adesogan et al., 2004; Rondahl et al., 2007; Sinclair et al., 2009).

Pea straw

Pea straw is the most common type of pea forage. Its protein content is variable: values in the 5-10% DM range (Leclerc, 2003) and in the 10-15% DM range have been reported. The NDF content is about 53-63% DM (Borreani et al., 2007). It is also rich in minerals (7-12% DM), notably calcium (1.5-2%) (Leclerc, 2003). With a higher protein content and less fibre, pea straw has a higher nutritive value than that of cereal straws. Its quality is intermediate between a cereal straw and a good grass hay (Leclerc, 2003; Ellwood, 2004; Mould et al., 2001).

The palatability of pea straw is good but depends on the harvesting and storage conditions (Leclerc, 2003). In particular, it should be harvested when dry to prevent moulding, which has a detrimental effect on its digestibility and acceptance (Ellwood, 2004). Harvesting should occur immediately after threshing to avoid the accumulation of dirt (Leclerc, 2003). Pea straw is ingested at higher levels (expressed on a body weight basis) by small ruminants (sheep and goats) than by large ones (cattle and buffaloes) (Bachchu et al., 1994).

In temperate regions, pea straw is suitable for livestock that have low nutritional requirements, such as suckling cows and animals with a moderate growth. Lactating ewes can be given 0.5-1 kg/d, lambs 0.5 kg/d and goats 1-2 kg/d. For cattle, it is roughly equivalent to a low quality grass hay (Leclerc, 2003). In France, 12-17 month old heifers fed pea straw ad libitum in addition to a concentrate had a daily growth of 600 g/d, allowing them to reach the ideal weight at calving (Brunschwig, 2003a). In Egypt, pea straw replaced berseem hay (Trifolium alexandrinum) in the complete diets of weaned lambs. Nutrient digestibility and feed conversion were similar for both forages (Abdel-Magid et al., 2008).

Fungal treatment can increase N content and decrease cell wall contents, thereby increasing the nutritive value of pea straws (Neijat et al., 1997). Urea treatment was not satisfactory for pea straw, as the increase in N content was counterbalanced by a decrease in nutrient digestibility and straw intake because of the large increase in water intake (Sabbioni et al., 1992).

Pea haulms

Green pea haulms can be given either fresh or ensiled to ruminants. With pea haulms containing 12% DM of crude protein, OM digestibility in ewes were 74 and 63% for the fresh and ensiled haulms respectively (Gasa et al., 1989).

Pigs

Peas can be grazed by pigs for a short period, though a pure pea pasture is more suitable for emergency situations than for regular feeding. Plants must be at least 25 cm high. Mixed pastures of peas, grass and other plants (for example chicory, rape) used to be popular pig pastures in the USA and UK, and can still be interesting in some cases. An oat/pea pasture can be grazed after 1.5-2 months and support 25-38 pigs of 45 kg per ha. Pigs can also be pastured on mature pea crops ("hogging-off"). The animals can be sent to pasture from the pod formation stage to seed maturity. Minerals and concentrates are required (Duval, 1993).

Dried and ground peas were included at up to 18% of the diet in growing-finishing pigs. Pea crops harvested 4 weeks after the beginning of flowering gave better performance than the crops harvested one week before (Lund et al., 1986).

Rabbits

Pea vines (crop residue) were found to have a high nutritive value for rabbits, comparable to that of clover (Zaza et al., 2009). An unspecified pea fodder was shown to be unpalatable to rabbits, resulting in low DM and nutrient intake, and this fodder was judged unsuitable for rabbit feeding (Gupta et al., 1993).

Horses and donkeys

Pea straw contains more protein than cereal straw, but this extra protein may be bound by fibre, making it unavailable to horses. Therefore, the nutrient content of pea straw should be considered to be similar than that of oat or wheat straw (Warren, 2004). Pea straw has a coarse texture that may discourage some horses from eating it but otherwise it is palatable to horses, who can consume up to 3-4 kg/d (Warren, 2004; Leclerc, 2003).

Nutritional tables

Tables of chemical composition and nutritional value

Avg: average or predicted value; SD: standard deviation; Min: minimum value; Max: maximum value; Nb: number of values (samples) used

Pea straw

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	88.8	2.9	82.4	92.4	8
Crude protein	% DM	8.2	2.6	5.4	14.9	25
Crude fibre	% DM	36.3	4.1	27.6	42.5	22
NDF	% DM	54.9	5.4	43.9	61.9	19
ADF	% DM	38.7	4.3	28.8	43.8	19
Lignin	% DM	7.2	1.2	4.5	9.8	18
Ether extract	% DM	2.1		1.4	2.7	2
Ash	% DM	9.8	1.1	8.1	12.1	24
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	18.1					*

Minerals	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Calcium	g/kg DM	23.7	5.5	13.5	33.6	22
Phosphorus	g/kg DM	1.1	0.5	0.5	2.5	22
Potassium	g/kg DM	15.7	3.8	10.3	23.3	18
Sodium	g/kg DM	0.6	0.5	0.1	1.8	18
Magnesium	g/kg DM	2.7	0.8	1.3	4.7	19
Manganese	mg/kg DM	49	21	4	83	19
Zinc	mg/kg DM	16	6	7	29	19
Copper	mg/kg DM	4	2	2	8	18

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant	%	57.5	7.4	51.4	69.3	5	*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	54.1					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	9.8					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	7.9					*
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants	%	59.2	13.5	46.0	71.0	4

Rabbit nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Energy digestibility, rabbit	%	37.8					*
DE rabbit	MJ/kg DM	6.8					*

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

Abreu et al., 1998; AFZ, 2011; Alibes et al., 1990; Bruno-Soares et al., 2000; Neumark, 1970; Nsahlai et al., 1996; Trillaud-Geyl, 1990

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:45:38

Pea, aerial part, fresh

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	15.6	2.4	13.4	18.2	3
Crude protein	% DM	17.7	2.9	14.5	24.0	9
Crude fibre	% DM	22.9	3.7	17.9	28.3	7
NDF	% DM	31.1	4.5	23.9	37.2	8
ADF	% DM	23.1	4.2	18.3	29.6	8
Lignin	% DM	4.8	1.7	2.5	7.2	7
Ether extract	% DM	3.1	0.8	2.5	4.5	5
Ash	% DM	9.1	2.2	6.7	13.2	10
Starch (polarimetry)	% DM	13.9	7.6	7.5	22.2	3
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	18.5		17.7	18.5	2	*

Minerals	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Calcium	g/kg DM	18.6		18.4	18.7	2
Phosphorus	g/kg DM	3.9		3.7	4.0	2

Amino acids	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Alanine	% protein	4.6		4.4	4.8	2
Arginine	% protein	9.4		9.2	9.5	2
Aspartic acid	% protein	12.0		11.0	13.0	2
Cystine	% protein	1.3		1.2	1.4	2
Glutamic acid	% protein	14.3		13.4	15.2	2
Glycine	% protein	4.4		4.3	4.5	2
Histidine	% protein	2.3		2.3	2.3	2
Isoleucine	% protein	4.3		4.2	4.3	2
Leucine	% protein	7.0		6.9	7.1	2
Lysine	% protein	6.6		6.2	7.0	2
Methionine	% protein	1.2		1.1	1.3	2
Phenylalanine	% protein	4.6		4.2	4.9	2
Proline	% protein	7.0		4.4	9.6	2
Serine	% protein	5.0		5.0	5.0	2
Threonine	% protein	4.0		4.0	4.0	2
Tyrosine	% protein	3.4		3.4	3.4	2
Valine	% protein	4.6		4.3	4.8	2

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant	%	72.3		72.2	72.4	2	*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	69.2					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	12.8					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	10.2					*
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants	%	79.3	6.4	72.0	83.9	3
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%)	%	79				1

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

AFZ, 2011; Alibes et al., 1990; Chapoutot et al., 1990; Lund et al., 1986; Neumark, 1970; Treviño et al., 1987

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:45:38

Pea, crop by-product, dehydrated

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	90.4	3.1	86.6	94.0	5
Crude protein	% DM	18.6	3.3	15.1	23.1	7
Crude fibre	% DM	17.7	5.5	8.0	23.6	7
NDF	% DM	43.0				1
Lignin	% DM	8.0				1
Ether extract	% DM	2.0	0.7	1.3	2.9	7
Ash	% DM	15.2	4.5	8.7	22.5	7
Starch (polarimetry)	% DM	22.3				1
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	17.0					*

Minerals	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Calcium	g/kg DM	12.7				1
Phosphorus	g/kg DM	12.4	14.6	3.5	29.3	3

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant	%	68.4		68.4	75.5	2	*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	64.8					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	11.0					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	8.8					*
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants	%	70.0		64.7	75.3	2

Pig nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig	%	62.2					*

Rabbit nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Energy digestibility, rabbit	%	61.7					*
DE rabbit	MJ/kg DM	10.5					*

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

AFZ, 2011; De Boever et al., 1994; Kromann et al., 1977; Martinez-Teruel et al., 1982; Phillips et al., 1946

Last updated on 26/02/2013 10:40:16

Pea, crop by-product, fresh

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	26.5				1
Crude protein	% DM	17.8	5.5	11.7	22.5	4
Crude fibre	% DM	22.6	3.6	18.1	26.8	4
NDF	% DM	43.1	7.6	35.4	53.6	4
ADF	% DM	26.8	4.0	21.2	30.6	4
Lignin	% DM	4.7	2.6	1.5	7.1	4
Ether extract	% DM	2.1		1.9	2.3	2
Ether extract, HCl hydrolysis	% DM	2.0				1
Ash	% DM	13.3	3.6	11.3	18.7	4
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	17.5					*

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant	%	72.6	3.1	66.2	73.6	5	*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	69.5					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	12.1					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	9.7					*
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%)	%	73				1

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

AFZ, 2011; Chapoutot et al., 1990; Gasa et al., 1989

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:45:39

Pea, crop by-product, ensiled

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	28.2				1
Crude protein	% DM	12.0				1
Crude fibre	% DM	24.3				1
NDF	% DM	53.7				1
ADF	% DM	40.5				1
Lignin	% DM	9.3				1
Ether extract	% DM	3.2				1
Ash	% DM	18.7				1
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	16.4					*

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant	%	62.5				1
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	58.4					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	9.6					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	7.7					*

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

Gasa et al., 1989

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:45:39

References

Abdel-Magid, S. S. ; El-Rahman, H. H. A. ; Mohamed, M. I. ; Awadalla, I. M., 2008. Utilization of chick pea straw and pea straw in feeding growing Rahmani lambs. Am.-Eur. J. Sci. Res., 4 (2): 214-217
Adesogan, A. T. ; Salawu, M. B. ; Williams, S. P. ; Fisher, W. J. ; Dewhurst, R. J., 2004. Reducing concentrate supplementation in dairy cow diets while maintaining milk production with pea-wheat intercrops. J. Dairy Sci., 87 (10): 3398-3406
Anderson, V. ; Harrold, R. ; Landblom, D. ; Lardy, G. ; Schatz, B. ; Schroeder, J.W., 2002. A guide to feeding field peas to livestock: Nutrient content and feeding recommendations for beef, dairy, sheep, swine and poultry. In: North Dakota State University, Extension service, AS-1224: 11 p.
Anil, L. ; Park, J. ; Phipps, R. H. ; Miller, F. A., 1998. Temperate intercropping of cereals for forage: a review of the potential for growth and utilization with particular reference to the UK. Grass and Forage Sci., 53 (4): 301-317
Bachchu, Singh; Taparia, A. L. ; Tiwarim, S. P. ; Chawla, G. L., 1994. A comparative study of rate of passage of pea straw through the alimentary tract of ruminant species. Indian Vet. J., 71 (2): 179-181
Bewley, J. D. ; Black, M. ; Halmer, P., 2006. The encyclopedia of seeds: science, technology and uses. CABI Publishing Series, 828 pp
Bilgili, U. ; Uzun, A. ; Sincik, M. ; Yavuz, M. ; Aydinolu, B. ; Cakmakci, S. ; Geren, H. ; Avciolu, R. ; Nizam, I. ; Tekel, S. ; Gül, S. ; Anlarsal, E. ; Yücel, C. ; Avci, M. ; Acar, Z. ; Ayan, I. ; Ustün, A. ; Acikgoz, E., 2010. Forage yield and lodging traits in peas (Pisum sativum L.) with different leaf types. Turk. J. Field Crops, 15 (1): 50-53
Borreani, G. ; Peiretti; P. G. ; Tabacco, E., 2007. Effect of harvest time on yield and pre-harvest quality of semi-leafless grain peas (Pisum sativum L.) as whole-crop forage. Field Crops Res., 100 (1): 1-9
Brunschwig, P., 2003. Pea straw, a good forage for heifers. Institut de l'Elevage, 3 février 2003
Brunschwig, P., 2003. Grazing pea regrowth?. Institut de l'Elevage, 5 février 2003
Børsting, C. F. ; Weisbjerg, M. R., 2002. Effects of whole crop pea silage and grass silage on performance of dairy cows. In: Multi-function grasslands: quality forages, animal products and landscapes. Eds Durand, J. L. Emile J. C. Huyghe C. Lemaire G. Proceedings of the 19th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, La Rochelle, France, 27-30 May 2002): 184-185
Cavallarin, L. ; Antoniazzi, S. ; Tabacco, E. ; Borreani, G., 2006. Effect of the stage of growth, wilting and inoculation in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) silages. II. Nitrogen fractions and amino acid compositions of herbage and silage. J. Sci. Food Agric., 86 (9): 1383-1390
Charles, R. ; Vullioud, P., 2001. Field pea nitrogen in crop rotation. Revue Suisse Agric., 33 (6): 365-370
Chittaranjan, K., 2007. Genome mapping and molecular breeding in plants, Volume 3: Pulses, sugar and tuber crops. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York
Collins, M. ; Moore, K. J., 1995. Postharvest processing of forages. In: Barnes, R.F., Miller, D.A. and Nelson, C.J. (eds). Forage: The Science of Grassland Agriculture: 147–161. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Cousin, R., 1997. Peas (Pisum sativum L.). Field Crops Res., 53: 111-130
Duval, J., 1993. Pasture and harvest in pig farming. Ecological Agricultural Projects, McGill University, AGRO-BIO - 370 - 06
Ellwood, L. S., 2004. Research Summaries: Peas in Livestock Diets. Pulse-Canola Feed Literature Database, Saskatchewan Pulse Growers and Saskatchewan Canola Development, and InfoHarvest Inc.
FAO, 2011. Grassland Index. A searchable catalogue of grass and forage legumes. FAO, Rome, Italy
Faulkner, J. S., 1985. A comparison of faba beans and peas as whole-crop forages. Grass and Forage Sci., 40 (2): 161-169
Fraser, M. D. ; Fychan, R. ; Jones, R., 2001. The effects of harvest date and inoculation on the yield, fermentation characteristics and feeding value of forage pea and field bean silages. Grass and Forage Sci., 56: 218-230.
Gasa, J. ; Castrillo, C. ; Baucells, M. D. ; Guada, J. A., 1989. By-products from the canning industry as feedstuff for ruminants: Digestibility and its prediction from chemical composition and laboratory bioassays. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 25 (1-2): 67-77
Gasmi-Boubaker, A. ; Selmi, H. ; Mosquera Losada, R. ; Ben Youssef, S. ; Zoghlami, A. ; Mehdi, W. ; Rekik, B. ; Rouissi, H. ; Rigueiro-Rodriguez, A., 2012. Nutritive value of whole plant (stem and leaves) of Hedysarum coronarium L, Medicago truncatula L, Vicia sativa L and Pisum sativum L grown under Mediterranean conditions. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 24 (10)
GNIS, 2011. Le pois protéagineux. In: des ressources en protéines à redécouvrir: les protéagineux. Centre de ressources sur les semences et les espèces végétales.
Göhl, B., 1982. Les aliments du bétail sous les tropiques. FAO, Division de Production et Santé Animale, Roma, Italy
Guilleman, E. ; de tourdonnet, S., 2003. Le pois protéagineux. In: Poly de phytotechnie, serveur de ressources du département SIAFEE, AgroParistech
Gupta, H. K. ; Yadav, B. P. S. ; Gupta, J. J. ; Bujarbaruah, K. M., 1993. Utilization of leguminous roughages in rabbit rations. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 63 (4): 481-483
Hadjipanayiotou, M. ; Hadjidemetriou, D. ; Hadjilouca, T., 1987. Determination of roughage digestibility in vivo, in vitro and with an enzymatic method. Nutr. Rep. Int., 35 (5): 957-961
Hart, K. J. ; Sinclair, L. A. ; Wilkinson, R. G. ; Huntington, J. A., 2011. Effect of whole-crop pea (Pisum sativum L.) silages differing in condensed tannin content as a substitute for grass silage and soybean meal on the performance, metabolism and carcass characteristics of lambs. J. Anim. Sci., 89 (11): 2009-2617
Hayashi, Y. ; Devkota, N. R. ; Kumagai, H., 2007. Effects of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) hay feeding on dry matter intake and milk production of Murrah buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) fed rice straw ad libitum. Anim. Sci. J., 78 (2): 151-158
ILDIS, 2009. ILDIS World Database of Legumes. International Legume Database & Information Service
Iliev, F. ; Kozelov, L. ; Chindarska, Z. ; Ignatova, M., 2002. Determination of energy and protein value of pea hay and dehydrated alfalfa. Zhivotnov'dni Nauki, 39 (3): 37-39
Koivisto, J. M. ; Benjamin, L. R. ; Lane, G. P. F. ; Davies, W. P., 2003. Forage potential of semi-leaﬂess grain peas. Grass and Forage Sci., 58 (2): 220-223
Ksiezak, J. ; Staniak, M., 2009. Evaluation of legume-cereal mixtures in organic farming as raw material for silage production. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Engin., 54 (3): 157-163
Leclerc, M.-C., 2003. Protein pea straw. Comité National des Coproduits, Fiche n°6 Coproduits riches en lignocellulose, Institut de l'Elevage
Lund, S. ; Hakansson, J., 1986. Nutritional and growth studies with pea-crop meals and peas for growing-finishing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 16 (1-2): 119-128
Marley, C. L. ; Fychan, R. ; Fraser, M. D. ; Sanderson, R. ; Jones, R., 2007. Effects of feeding different ensiled forages on the productivity and nutrient-use efficiency of finishing lambs. Grass and Forage Sci., 62 (1): 1-12
Martin-Sanz, A. ; Caminero, C. ; Jing, R. ; Flavell, A. J. ; Perez de la Vega, M., 2011. Genetic diversity among Spanish pea (Pisum sativum L.) landraces, pea cultivars and the World Pisum sp. core collection assessed by retrotransposon-based insertion polymorphisms (RBIPs). Spanish J. Agric. Res., 9 (1): 166-178
Martinez-Teruel, A. ; Medina Blanco, M., 1982. A contribution to the study of some by-products of the canning industry in Murcia used in animal feeding. Arch. Zootec., 31 (120): 155-169
Maxted, N. ; Bennett, S. J., 2001. Plant genetic resources of legumes in the Mediterranean. Current plant science and biotechnology in agriculture, volume 39, Springer
Messiaen, C-M. ; Seif, A. A. ; Jarso, M. ; Keneni, G., 2006. Pisum sativum L.. Record from Protabase. Brink, M. & Belay, G. (Editors). PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa / Ressources végétales de l’Afrique tropicale), Wageningen, Netherlands
Moore, H. L., 1941. Crops for ensilage. In: Silos and silage. Farmers and Stock breeders
Mould, F. L. ; Hervas, G. ; Owen, E. ; Wheeler, T. R. ; Smith, N. O. ; Summerfield, R. J., 2001. The effect of cultivar on the rate and extent of combining pea straw degradability examined in vitro using the Reading Pressure Technique. Grass and Forage Sci., 56 (4): 374-382
Muehlbauer, F. J. ; Tullu, A., 1997. Pisum sativum L.. In: NewCrop Factsheet, Purdue University, Center for new crops & plant products.
Mustafa, A. F. ; Christensen, D. A. ; McKinnon, J. J., 2000. Effects of pea, barley, and alfalfa silage on ruminal nutrient degradability and performance of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 83 (12): 2859-2865
Mustafa, A. F. ; Seguin, P., 2003. Characteristics and in situ degradability of whole crop faba bean, pea, and soybean silages. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 83 (4): 793-799
Neijat, M. S. ; Gallagher, J. R., 1997. Chemical composition and nutritive value of pea straw subjected to fungal fermentation. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 29 (4): 216-218
Neumark, H., 1970. Personal communication. Volcani Institute of Agricutural Reseach, Israel
Oelke, E. A. ; Oplinger, E. S. ; Hanson, C. V. ; Davis, D. W. ; Putnam, D. H. ; Fuller, E. I. ; Rosen, C. J., 1991. Dry field pea. Alternative Field Crop Manual, University of Wisconsin-Exension, Cooperative Extension
Pichard, G. ; Innocenti, E., 1983. Morphological and nutritional changes in forage peas in various growth stages. Proceedings of the Fifth World Conference on Animal Production, August, 1983. Vol 2: 607–608
Prolea, 2008. Le pois sec, de la plante à ses utilisations. UNIP, France
Rondahl, T. ; Bertilsson, J. ; Lindgren, E. ; Martinsson, K., 2006. Effects of stage of maturity and conservation strategy on fermentation, feed intake and digestibility of whole-crop pea-oat silage used in dairy production. Acta Agric. Scand. Section A, Animal Science, 56 (3-4): 137-147
Rondahl, T. ; Bertilsson, J. ; Martinsson, K., 2007. Mixing whole-crop pea-oat silage and grass-clover silage: positive effects on intake and milk production of dairy cows. Grass and Forage Sci., 62 (4): 459-469
Rondahl, T. ; Bertilsson, J. ; Martinsson, K., 2010. Effects of maturity stage, wilting and acid treatment on crude protein fractions and chemical composition of whole crop pea silages (Pisum sativum L.). Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 163 (1): 11-19
Rondahl, T., 2004. Pea and pea-grain mixtures as whole crop protein silage for dairy cows. Rôbäcksdalen meddelar. SLU Department of Agricultural Research for Northern Sweden. Swedish Univeristy of Agricultural Science, Rapport 4: 1-24
Sabbioni, A. ; Superchi, P. ; Bonomi, A. ; Mazzali, I., 1992. Chemical composition and digestibility in vivo of spring pea straw treated with urea. Annali della Facolta di Medicina Veterinaria, Universita di Parma, 12): 143-150
Salawu, M. B. ; Adesogan, A. T. ; Fraser, M. D. ; Fychan, R. ; Jones, R., 2002. Assessment of the nutritive value of whole crop peas and intercropped pea-wheat bi-crop forages harvested at different maturity stages for ruminants. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 96 (1-2): 43-53
Selmi, H. ; Gasmi-Boubaker, A. ; Mehdi, W. ; Rekik, B. ; Ben Salah, Y. ; Rouissi, H., 2010. Chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of leaves of Hedysarum coronarium L, Medicago truncatula L, Pisum sativum L and Vicia sativa L. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 22 (6)
Sinclair, L. A. ; Hart, K. J. ; Wilkinson, R. G. ; Huntington, J. A., 2009. Effects of inclusion of whole-crop pea silages differing in their tannin content on the performance of dairy cows fed high or low protein concentrates. Livest. Sci., 124 (1/3): 306-313
SMA, 2008. Beef cow rations and winter feeding guidelines. Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, Production factsheet
Suttie, J. M., 2000. Hay and straw conservation for small-scale farming and pastoral conditions. FAO Plant Production and Protection Series No. 29, FAO, Rome
USDA, 2011. GRIN - Germplasm Resources Information Network. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland
Warren, L. K., 2004. Feeding and management considerations for horses. Alberta Ag-Info Centre, Agri-Facts Agdex 460/50-4
Wilkins, R. J. ; Jones, R., 2000. Alternative home-grown protein sources for ruminants in the United Kingdom. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 85 (1-2): 23-32
Winch, T., 2007. Growing Food: A Guide to Food Production. Springer
Zaza, G. H. ; Ibrahim, M. R. M. ; Ali, A. M. ; Hassan, F. A., 2009. Nutritional evaluation of some vegetable crops by-products as unconventional feedstuffs in rabbits feeding. Egyptian J. Rabbit Sci., 19 (2): 71-86

Datasheet citation

Heuzé V., Tran G., Giger-Reverdin S., 2015. Pea forage. Feedipedia, a programme by INRAE, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. https://feedipedia.org/node/7047 Last updated on September 29, 2015, 17:20

English correction by Tim Smith (Animal Science consultant) and Hélène Thiollet (AFZ)

Image credits

Sponsored by

Automatic translation

Feed categories

Scientific names

Tools

Resources

Pea forage