Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:06:01.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of treatment of barley grain with sodium hydroxide and milling on its nutritive value for finishing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. C. Patterson
D. C. Patterson
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DP
Get access

Abstract

Growing pigs were given diets based on barley (whole or milled), which was either untreated or sprayed with an aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide (270 g sodium hydroxide per kg water) to give 33·8 g sodium hydroxide per kg dry matter. The barley grain was treated with sodium hydroxide while in the whole state. A total of 48 pigs penned individually were given the diets on a restricted scale of feeding from an initial weight of 31·6 kg until slaughter at 81·7 kg live weight. In a metabolism study, eight boars were subjected to the same experimental treatments in two identical 4 × 4 balanced change-over experiments.

The diet containing untreated milled barley gave significantly faster live-weight gain and lower food conversion ratio than the other three diets (P < 0·001). Food conversion ratios were similar for untreated whole barley and sodium hydroxide-treated barley, whether this was whole or milled. Killingout proportion was similar for untreated and treated milled barley but was significantly lower when the diet contained untreated or treated whole barley.

Milling significantly increased the digestibility of energy and nitrogen. Treatment with sodium hydroxide improved the digestibility of energy in the diet with whole barley but not in the diet with milled barley. With both whole and milled barley, treatment with sodium hydroxide increased the digestibility of crude fibre (P < 0·05) but with ground barley the digestibility and retention of nitrogen were reduced considerably by treatment with sodium hydroxide.

It is concluded that treatment of barley with sodium hydroxide did not improve the nutritive value of either milled or whole grain, that it reduced the digestibility of nitrogen and that it severely depressed the utilization of digested energy for growth.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , April 1984 , pp. 271 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1984

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

Agricultural Research Council. 1981. The Nutrient Requirements of Pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Beames, R. M. and Ngwira, T. N. 1978. Growth and digestibility studies with growing-finishing pigs receiving whole barley or ground barley by various feeding methods. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 58: 319–328.Google Scholar
Bettenay, R. A. 1980. Comparison of caustic sodatreated barley and rolled barley in the ration of dairy cows. Aust. J. exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 20: 394–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clawson, A. J. 1962. Effect of fineness of grinding on the growth of pigs raised in confinement and on pasture. J. Anim. Sci. 21: 377 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Davidson, J., McIntosh, A. D. and Milne, E. 1982. Note on the lysinoalanine content of alkali-treated barley. Anim. Feed Sci. & Technol. 7: 217–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, T. J. 1963. The feeding of hermetically stored high moisture barley to pigs and cattle. Rec. Agric. Res. (TV. Ir.) 13: 21–28.Google Scholar
Fuller, M. F. 1981. Sex differences in the nutrition and growth of pigs. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition — 1980 (ed. Haresign, W.), pp. 157–169. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. L. J. 1970. Some effects of including differently processed barley in the diet of the growing pig. I. Growth rate, food conversion efficiency, digestibility and rate of passage through the gut. Anim. Prod. 12: 139–150.Google Scholar
McMurray, C. H. 1980. Nutritional supplies, requirements and effects of deficiencies of vitamin E and selenium. Proc. Roche Symp., Lond.Google Scholar
Maxwell, C. V., Reimann, E. M., Hoekstra, W. G., Kowalczyk, T., Benevenga, N. J. and Grummer, R. H. 1970. Effect of dietary particle size on lesion development and on the contents of various regions of the swine stomach. J. Anim. Sci. 30: 911–922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ørskov, E. R. 1976. The effect of processing on digestion and utilization of cereals by ruminants. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35: 245–252.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and Greenhalgh, J. F. D. 1977. Alkali treatment as a method of processing whole grain for cattle. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 89: 253–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. C. and Walker, N. 1979. The use of effluent from grass silage in the diet of finishing pigs. II. Assessment of nutritive value of fresh and stored effluent. Anim. Feed Sci. & Technol. 4: 275–293.Google Scholar