Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-5mhkq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-11T15:35:20.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moist barley preserved with acid in the diet of the growing pig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

S. Perez-Aleman ,
D. G. Dempster ,
P. R. English  and
J. H. Topps
S. Perez-Aleman
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Aberdeen
D. G. Dempster
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Aberdeen
P. R. English
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Aberdeen
J. H. Topps
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Aberdeen
Get access

Summary

The feeding value of moist barley (approximately 27% moisture) which had been treated with 1·3 % of a mixture of formic (70 %) and propionic (30 %) acids was compared with that of dried barley for growing pigs from 23 to 85 kg live weight. Two experiments were undertaken; 96 pigs were fed ad libitum on one of three diets containing dried or acid-treated moist barley and another 48 pigs were individually fed on one of four diets containing dried or acid-treated moist barley in controlled amounts. These amounts were governed by an allowance of dry matter at a certain live weight.

In neither experiment were significant differences found between the treatments in growth rate or efficiency of utilization of food dry matter. Pigs fed ad libitum showed no significant difference in intake of dry matter, but those given the diet containing dried barley had a higher content of fat in their carcass than those on the acid-treated barley. A total of 21 pigs, 16 fed ad libitum and all receiving diets containing acid-treated barley had a discolouration of fat in the carcass.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , May 1971 , pp. 271 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. 1960. Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Braude, R. 1967. The effects of changes in feeding patterns on the performance of pigs. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 26: 163–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breidenstein, B. C., Garrigan, D. S. and Humphreys, R. L. 1964. Carcase traits of pigs given maize with high moisture and lucerne with low moisture content. J. Anim. Sci. 23: 1202 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Cole, D. J. A., Dean, G. W. and Luscombe, J. R. 1970. Single cereal diets for bacon pigs. 2. The effect of methods of storage and preparation of barley on performance and carcass quality. Anim. Prod. 12: 1–6.Google Scholar
Collier, A. 1969. Acid preservation of feed grain. Power Farming, April issue, pp. 12–14.Google Scholar
Gowland, R. 1968. The feeding of propionic acid treated moist grain to pigs. Report No. 2002. B.P. Chemicals (U.K.) Ltd.Google Scholar
Livingston, D. M. S. and Livingstone, R. M. 1966. The use of high-moisture-stored cereal in pig diets. Anim. Prod. 8: 361–362 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Lucas, I. A. M., McDonald, I. and Calder, A. F. C. 1960. Some further observations upon the effects of varying the plane of feeding for pigs between weaning and bacon weight. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 54: 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehouse, K., Zarow, A. and Shay, H. 1945. Rapid method for determining ‘crude fiber’ in distillers dried grain. J. Assoc. Off. agric. Chem. 28: 147–152.Google Scholar