Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T22:40:03.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Propionic acid-treated barley in the diets of bacon pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. J. A. Cole ,
P. H. Brooks ,
P. R. English ,
R. M. Livingstone  and
J. R. Luscombe
D. J. A. Cole
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire
P. H. Brooks
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire
P. R. English
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Aberdeen
R. M. Livingstone
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen
J. R. Luscombe
Affiliation:
Harper Adams Agricultural College, Newport, Shropshire
Get access

Summary

Growth performance and carcass quality (linear measurements) were studied in pigs grown from 25 to 90 kg on barley stored and prepared in different ways. Half the barley was dried to about 14% moisture content for storage and half was not dried but treated with 0·8% propionic acid. Each was given after hammer-milling (3·2 mm screen) or rolling. A total of 144 pigs was used at four centres.

The performance and carcass quality of pigs given acid-treated barley were as good as those given dried barley. While feed utilization, expressed on the basis of air-dry feed, was poorer for pigs fed on acid-treated barley this difference disappeared when account was taken of the different moisture contents of the barley samples. Pigs fed on diets based on milled barley grew more quickly, had better feed utilization but greater fat measurements than pigs fed on rolled barley. There was a significant interaction between storage method and feed preparation (milling or rolling). Pigs given the acid-treated barley grew more quickly when it was in the milled form than when it was rolled, whereas for the dried barley there was a small, non-significant difference in favour of the rolled form.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , December 1975 , pp. 295 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1975

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

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
English, P. R., Topps, J. H. and Dempster, D. G. 1973. Moist barley preserved with propionic acid in the diet of the growing pig. Anim. Prod. 17: 75–84.Google Scholar
Gibson, T., Stirling, A. C., Keddie, R. M. and Rosenberger, R. F. 1958. Bacteriological changes in silage made at controlled temperatures. J. gen. Microbiol. 19: 112–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hebblethwaite, P. and Hepherd, R. Q. 1965. A detailed procedure of testing for hammer mills and other farm grinding mills. National Institute of Agricultural Engineering. Technical memorandum No. 129.Google Scholar
Kaufman, D. D., Williams, L. E. and Sumner, C. B. 1963. Effect of plating medium and incubation temperature on growth of fungi in soil diluting plates. Can. J. Microbiol. 9: 741–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuster, E. and Williams, S. T. 1964. Selection of media for isolation of Streptomycetes. Nature, Lond. 22: 928–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. L. J. 1967. High-level cereal diets for the growing/finishing pig. II. The effect of cereal preparation on the performance of pigs fed diets containing high levels of maize, sorghum and barley. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 69: 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. L. J. 1970. Some effects of including differently processed barley in the diet of the growing pig. 1. Growth rate, food conversion efficiency, digestibility and rate of passage through the gut. Anim. Prod. 12: 139–150.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. L. J. 1972. Developments in cereal processing. Growing pigs. In Cereal Processing and Digestion, pp. 77–105. U.S. Feed Grains Council, London.Google Scholar
Livingstone, R. M., Denerley, H., Stewart, C. S. and Elsley, F. W. H. 1971. Moist barley for growing pigs: some effects of storage and method of processing. Anim. Prod. 13: 547–556.Google Scholar
Madsen, A., Mortensen, H. P., Larsen, A. E., Laursen, B., Nielsen, E. K., Welling, B. and Jensen, A. 1973. [Moist barley preserved with propionic acid in the diet for bacon pigs.] Beretn. Forsogslab., No. 407.Google Scholar
Perez-Aleman, S., Dempster, D. G., English, P. R. and Topps, J. H. 1971. Moist barley preserved with acid in the diet of the growing pig. Anim. Prod. 13: 271–277.Google Scholar
Rogosa, M., Mitchell, J. A. and Wiseman, R. F. 1951. A selective medium for the isolation and enumeration of oral and fecal Lactobacilli. J. Bad. 62: 132–133.Google ScholarPubMed