Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T23:46:19.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moist barley for growing pigs: some effects of storage method and processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. M. Livingstone,
H. Denerley,
C. S. Stewart and
F. W. H. Elsley
R. M. Livingstone
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksbum, Aberdeen, AB2 9SB
H. Denerley
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksbum, Aberdeen, AB2 9SB
C. S. Stewart
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksbum, Aberdeen, AB2 9SB
F. W. H. Elsley
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksbum, Aberdeen, AB2 9SB
Get access

Summary

Forty-eight pigs were used to compare the feeding value of barley which had been stored dry, and then hammer-milled, with that of barley stored moist, either anaerobically or treated with 1·3% propionic acid, and then rolled. The pigs were fed from 30 kg live weight for a period of 11 weeks and during this period all consumed the same allowance of dry matter. The growth rate and feed conversion ratio of the pigs given the rolled moist barley were significantly poorer than those of others given dry milled or acid treated rolled barley. There were no treatment differences in carcass attributes.

Microbiological counts made throughout the experiment showed that there was no significant fungal or bacterial development on the acid treated barley. Similar numbers of bacteria were present on the dry barley as on the moist, but the fungal count for the moist grain was always at least 500 times higher than that of the corresponding dry sample. The dominant organisms were identified.

In a further experiment the apparent digestibility of dry matter and nitrogen of diets containing dry, moist or propionic acid treated barley, processed either by milling or rolling, were determined. The highest values were obtained for dry barley. Acid treated moist barley had lower values than moist barley. The method of processing did not affect the apparent digestibility of the dry matter, but that of the N was significantly lower for the rolled barleys.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , August 1971, pp. 547 - 556
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Burnside, J. E., Sippel, W. L., Forgacs, J., Carll, W. T., Atwood, M. B. and Doll, E. R. 1957. A disease of swine and cattle caused by eating mouldy corn. II. Experi-mental production with pure cultures of moulds. Am. J. vet. Res. 18: 817–824.Google Scholar
Butler, N. J. and Eggins, H. O. W. 1964. Biodeterioration: with special reference to the microbiological deterioration of foods. Proc. int. Fd Indust. Congr. p. 109.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
Fowler, V. R. and Livingstone, R. M. 1971. Some effects of alternating high and low levels of feed intake on the performance and composition of the growing pig. Anim Prod. 13: 59–69.Google Scholar
Livingstone, R. M. and Livingston, D. M. S. 1970. The use of moist barley in diets for growing pigs. Anim. Prod. 12: 561–568.Google Scholar
Miles, A. A. and Misra, S. S. 1938. The estimation of the bactericidal power of the blood. Hyg., Camb. 38: 732–749.Google ScholarPubMed
Rep. Rothamsted Exp. Stn. 1965. p. 135.Google Scholar
Richardson, L. R., Cannon, M. L. and Pierce, K. R. 1963. Amino acid deficiency in diets containing mouldy ingredients. Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs. exp. Biol. 22: 201 (Abstr.).Google Scholar