Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:05:18.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Digestion trials with swine: II. Comparative determinations of the digestibility of dry-fed maize, soaked maize, cooked maize and flaked maize

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Herbert Ernest Woodman
Affiliation:
(The Institute for the Study of Animal Nutrition, School of Agriculture, Cambridge University.)

Extract

In Table XII is given a summary of the mean digestion coefficients obtained in the foregoing maize feeding experiments.

The figures in Table XII bring out very clearly the effect of preliminary treatment on the digestibility of maize. An inspection of the dry matter digestion coefficients reveals the fact that maize meal possesses the lowest digestibility when fed in the dry condition, a higher value when fed after thorough soaking in water and a higher value still when first submitted to cooking.

These facts are in accordance with anticipation; the surprising feature of the results, however, lies in the discovery of the inappreciable extent to which the maize digestibility is raised by soaking or cooking. A relatively low degree of digestibility might justifiably have been anticipated for raw unsoaked maize, since the hard flinty nature of the grain, even after crushing, might render it liable to be excreted in appreciable amount into the faeces without having been much affected by digestive enzymes. This proved by no means to be the case. The effect of thoroughly soaking the grain prior to feeding was merely to raise the digestibility of the maize by 1 per cent, (from 85·9 per cent, to 86·9 per cent.), whilst even efficient cooking only brought about a rise in digestibility from 85·9 to 88·1 per cent., although, as will be noted by reference to an earlier part of this communication, the conditions of the trial were weighted in favour of the cooked meal by using fine meal for cooking and crushed maize for dry-feeding.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1925

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

(1)Hornberger, and Mitarb, (1879). Jahresb. ü. Agric. Chem. 2, Ser. 2, 399.Google Scholar
(2)Withycombe, and Bradley, . Oregon Stat. Bull. No. 102.Google Scholar
(3)Stutzer, (1892). Vers. Stat. 40, 321 and 323.Google Scholar
(4)Ladd, (1885). New York (Geneva) Station Report.Google Scholar
(5)Weiske, (1894). Vers. Stat. 43, 457.Google Scholar
(6)Popoff, (1890). Ztschr. f. physiol. Chem. 14, 524.Google Scholar
(7)Atwater, (1888). Ztschr. f. Biologie, N.F., p. 139.Google Scholar
(8)Ann. Rept. of Trustees of the Maine State Coll. of Agric. 1878.Google Scholar
(9)Wood, and Woodman, (1924). Journ. Agric. Sci. 14, 498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Woodman, (1925). Journ. Agric. Sci. 15, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Woodman, (1924). Journ. Agric. Sci. 14, 428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Crowther, and Woodman, (1922). Journ. Agric. Sci. 12, 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Honcamp, and Koch, (1920). Vers. Stat. 96, 120.Google Scholar