| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 574.44 KB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
One of the main challenges in the livestock sector is the need to increase sustainability and production efciency. In pig production, feed is the main production cost. High moisture grains (HMGs) have recently emerged as an interesting alternative to conventional feedstufs. In this study, the nutritional value for pigs of eight HMGs was determined considering the chemical composition and the in vitro digestibility. We have used four seeds (lupine, barley, wheat, and corn) and two substrates (water and whey). Lupine HMG showed higher values of crude fat (2.12%) and crude protein (8.59%). Within cereal HMGs, corn HMG showed higher DM (34.37%), OM (36.27%), and starch (27.17%) values; wheat HMG stood out for crude protein content (4.23%) and barley for NDF (5.68%). The pH values were low for all HMG, with lupine having the highest value (4.39). Ammoniacal nitrogen had the highest value for wheat HMG (6.10%). When whey was used as substrate, it improved the characteristics of the HMG. Regarding in vitro digestibility, of the four HMGs studied, wheat showed the highest value for DM (89.93%), while lupine showed the highest value for crude protein (96.12%). When considering the substrates, whey showed better results for all in vitro digestibility’s parameters (87.48%, 90.95%, and 90.59%, for DM, OM, and crude protein, respectively). Overall, all HMGs showed good conservation of nutritional value and high in vitro digestibility. The use of whey as a substrate was benefcial for HMG quality. Results show that the analyzed HMG can be efciently used in the framework of swine production.
Description
Research Areas: Agriculture ; Veterinary Sciences
Keywords
Pigs High moisture grain In vitro digestibility pH Conservation
Pedagogical Context
Citation
Chaves AAM, Martins CF, Vasconcelos M, Almeida AM, Freire JPB. 2022. In vitro digestibility of four high moisture grains used in liquid pig feeding. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 54(2): 136. DOI: 10.1007/s11250-022-03134-6
Publisher
Springer
