Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:54:00.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the feeding value of maize and sorghum for fattening pigs†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

F. X. Vanschoubroek ,
R. L. Van Spaendonk  and
W. Nauwynck
F. X. Vanschoubroek
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition
R. L. Van Spaendonk
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Husbandry Veterinary College, University of Ghent, Belgium
W. Nauwynck
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Husbandry Veterinary College, University of Ghent, Belgium
Get access

Extract

Six comparable groups, each of 4 castrate pigs, were used to compare the feed value of maize and sorghum as estimated by live-weight gain, food conversion efficiency, slaughter quality and ham composition.

The maize ration contained 40% yellow maize and the sorghum ration 40% Sorghum vulgare subglabrescens, all other ingredients being the same for both diets.

No statistically significant differences were found between the maize and sorghum pigs with regard to the criteria mentioned.

It is concluded that no difference exists between the feed value of the maize and the sorghum used. This result is in better agreement with the net energy values of maize and sorghum as calculated by the formula of Hoff-mann and digestion coefficients for pigs, than with “classical” starch equivalents.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , October 1964 , pp. 357 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1964

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

Braude, R., Mitchell, K. G. & Robinson, K. L., 1950. The value of Australian sorghum for fattening pigs. J. agric. Sci., 40: 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausen, H. & Ludvigsen, J., 1960. Quantity and quality of final products other than milk—non-ruminants (pigs). Proc. Vth int. Congr. Nutr., Washington, Panel VI: Animal Nutrition and Food Production: 31.Google Scholar
Dammers, J. & Dukstra, N. D., 1961. De verteerbaarheid en voederwaarde van verschillende sorghumvarieteiten. Landbouwkundig Tijdschr., 73: 802.Google Scholar
Franke, E. R. & Weniger, J. H., 1958. Der Stickstoff und Energiegehalt des Fleisches und die Warmewert des Fettes verschiedener Nutztierarten. Arch. Tierernahr., 8: 81.Google Scholar
Franklin, J. S., 1957. Grain sorghum fits feeding, programs well, can generally replace corn pound for pound. Feedstuff's, Oct. 26, p. 82.Google Scholar
Hoffman, L., 1961. Zur Berechnung der Nettoenergie von Futterstoffen, Second Symposium on Energy Metabolism. Europ. Assoc. Anim. Prod. publ. no. 10, p. 261.Google Scholar
Scott, K. W., Noland, P. R. & McNeal, X., 1962. Using milo in swine rations. Feedstuffs, Jan. 6, p. 24.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W., 1956, Statistical Methods. Vth Ed. The Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
Tanksley, T. D., 1961. Grain sorghum in swine feeding. Feedstuffs, May 20, p. 26.Google Scholar
Veevoedertabel, , 1957. Edited by the Centraal Veevoederbureau in Nederland, Boxtel, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Weniger, J. H. & Schumm, H. R., 1957. Untersuchungen iiber rechnerische Bestimmung des Nahrstoffgehaltes ganzer Schweinekörper, bzw. deren Schlachthalften. Arch. Tierernahr. 7, 211.Google Scholar
Futterwerttabelle (Schweine), 1961. D. L. G. Verlag G.M.B.H. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar