Two trials, each involving 12 crossbred (YLD) pigs, were conducted to evaluate diets containing 61.7% syrup off protected or not with formaldehyde (2 mL/kg). The remaining 38.3% of the diet was torula yeast, minerals and vitamins. In trial 1 higher (P&lt;.05) voluntary feed intake and rate of gain were observed in finishing pigs (50-90 kg) fed the protected as opposed to unprotected syrup off stored at ambient temperature. In trial 2, unprotected syrup stored under refrigeration was consumed in slightly greater quantity than the protected material. Digestibility of DM and OM were unaffected (P&lt;.10) by dietary variables and, although formaldehyde protection depressed (P&lt;.05) energy andNdigestibility, there were no differences between treatments in N and energy retention. The protection of syrup off for pig feeding by formaldehyde addition is suggested as a useful option

Blanco, L. J.

Castillo, J.

Ly, Julio

Perez, R.

Spanish

Latin American Archives of Animal Production

.Formaldehyde protection of syrup off based diets for pigs.Feeding value and nutrient utilizationJ. Ly*, L. J. Blanco, J. Castillo and R. PérezInstituto de Investigaciones Porcinas. Carr. Guatao km 1, Punta Brava. La Habana, CubaABSTRACT: Two trials, each involving 12 crossbred (YLD) pigs, were conducted to evaluate diets containing 61.7%syrup off protected or not with formaldehyde (2 mL/kg). The remaining 38.3% of the diet was torula yeast, minerals and vi-tamins. In trial 1 higher (P < 0.05) voluntary feed intake and rate of gain were observed in finishing pigs (50-90 kg) fed theprotected as opposed to unprotected syrup off stored at ambient temperature. In trial 2, unprotected syrup stored under re-frigeration was consumed in slightly greater quantity than the protected material. Digestibility of DM and OM were unaf-fected (P < 0.10) by dietary variables and, although formaldehyde protection depressed (P < 0.05) energy and N digestibility,there were no differences between treatments in N and energy retention. The protection of syrup off for pig feeding by for-maldehyde addition is suggested as a useful option.Key words: Digestibility, energy balance, growth, nitrogen balance, pigs, syrup off©2000 ALPA. Todos los derechos reservados Arch. Latinoam. Prod. Anim. 2000. 8(2): 47-50Protección con formaldehído de dieta de sirope de refinería para cerdos.Valor alimentario y utilización de nutrimentosRESUMEN: En dos pruebas, cada una con 12 cerdos de raza cruzada (YLD), se evaluaron dietas incluyendo 61.7% desirope de refinería protegido o no con formaldehído (2 mL/kg). El resto de la dieta (38.3%) se componía de levadura torula yfuentes de minerales y vitaminas. En la prueba 1 se observó mayor (P < 0.05) consumo voluntario y tasa de ganancia en cer-dos en acabado (50-90 kg) alimentados con sirope protegido contra el no protegido al realizar el almacenaje del mismo atemperatura ambiental. En la prueba 2, el sirope no protegido almacenado bajo refrigeración fue consumido en cantidad le-vemente mayor que el protegido. La digestibilidad de materia seca y materia orgánica no acusó efecto (P < 0.10) de las varia-bles dietéticas y, aunque la protección con formaldehído disminuyó (P < 0.05) la digestibilidad de energía y nitrógeno, nohubo diferencias entre tratamientos en la retención de energía y N. Se sugiere que la protección del sirope de refinería desti-nado a la alimentación porcina con formaldehído es una opción útil.Palabras clave: Digestibilidad, balance de energía, crecimiento, balance de nitrógeno, cerdos, sirope de refineríaIntroductionIn many sugarcane growing areas of the world, includingCuba, syrup off is a locally available source of energy forpossible use as an animal feed. It is a by-product of raw su-gar refining. However, being a liquid with high sucrosecontent, it is difficult to handle if no provision is made toprevent the spontaneous fermentation that commonlyoccurs in such materials (Pérez, 1997).The efficacy of using low levels of formaldehyde to pre-vent deterioration of liquid feeds fed to pigs has been de-monstrated (Barber et al., 1956; Fevrier et al., 1993; Larra-hondo and Preston, 1989).Earlier studies at this institute on the use of syrup off pro-tected with formaldehyde, indicated improved performancein pigs fed this material (Ly and Castillo, 1983). The pre-sent work was conducted to further evaluate the effects offormaldehyde protected syrup off on the performance ofpigs. A further objective was to determine digestibility andN and energy balances in pigs fed a diet based on protectedsyrup off.47*E-mail: iipOO@ceniai.inf.cuRecibido Marzo 09, 1999.Aceptado Febrero 10, 2001Materials and MethodsThe syrup off used in this study was obtained in a singlebatch from a sugar refinery located in Havana Province.Analysis of samples showed the syrup off to contain 72.2%dry matter (DM) and in the DM 94.5% sucrose, 0.95% ashand 3.97 kcal gross energy/g. The N content in syrup offwas negligible (0.06%) and its pH value was 5.1. This syrupwas divided in two batches which were treated or not with aconcentrated formaldehyde solution (37%) at the rate of2 mL/kg syrup.Trial 1. Twelve cross bred (YLD) pigs of mean initialweigh 50.5 kg were randomly assigned (three female andthree castrated males) to each of two treatments: a basal dietof syrup with or without formaldehyde protection and toru-la yeast (Table 1). The animals were housed in individualconcrete-floor pens with open-front shelters. Individual fe-eding stalls and automatic water troughs were provided andthe pigs were fed ad libitum the experimental diets for50 days.The treated and untreated syrup off was mixed daily withthe other dry ingredients of the diet before offering to theanimals. Syrup off was stored at ambient temperature(approximately 25°C) in covered, metallic containers. Atthe end of the experiment, grab samples of feces were obtai-ned. These were immediately homogenized and pH was es-timated by use of a glass electrode. Aliquot fecal sampleswere dried in a forced-air oven at 60°C for 72 hr. Afterdrying, the samples were allowed to equilibrate with at-mospheric moisture and ground through a 1 mm meshscreen in a small cyclone-type mill. Dry matter and ashwere estimated in feeds and feces by standard methods(AOAC, 1990). The organic matter fraction (OM) was defi-ned as 100 - % ash. Acid insoluble ash was determined infeed and feces as outlined by Van Keulen and Young(1977), for use as an internal digestibility indicator.Trial 2. Twelve YLD castrated male pigs weighing 24.9kg initially were randomly assigned to the same treatmentsdescribed in trial 1, except that in this case syrup off wasstored at 5ºC until used. The animals were randomly divi-ded in two groups of six pigs and fed twice daily at a level of40 g DM per kg body weight. Each pig received each dietfor a 14-day period, of which the first seven days were spentin individual pens and the last seven days in metabolism ca-ges. Feces and urine were collected during the last five daysaccording to procedures described elsewhere (Ly et al.,1991). The homogenized excreta and urine were stored at–20°C until analyzed.Nitrogen content in the diets, feces and urine was deter-mined in undried samples by the macrokjeldahl procedure(AOAC, 1990). Gross energy determinations were madewith an adiabatic bomb calorimeter following standard pro-cedures. The pH values were measured in fresh feces with aglass electrode. Fecal DM and OM were estimated as intrial 1. Urinary fructose content was determined by theanthrone method as outlined by Ly and Macias (1979).The data from both trials were subjected to analysis ofvariance in a completely random design (SAS, 1982), mea-ning a simple classification model (Steel and Torrie, 1980).Results and DiscussionThe pigs remained healthy throughout the trials and nosymptoms of animal discomfort were observed, Postmor-tem examinations revealed no gross abnormalities.Trial 1. Mean values for performance criteria during thefinishing phase are shown in Table 2. There was a tendency(P < 0.05) for higher voluntary feed intakes (2.93 vs. 2.69kg) and daily gain (824 vs. 744 g) in pigs fed the protectedsyrup off. There was no difference (P > 0.05) between die-tary treatments in feed/gain ratio. The relative reduction involuntary feed intake (8.2%) of pigs fed the untreated syrupoff may have been due to deterioration of the syrup, whichdecreased markedly in pH value (from 5.10 to 4.75) at theend of the trial. In a previous study, pigs fed syrup offshowed better production performance than those fed su-garcane molasses during the finishing phase (Ly and Cas-tro, 1984).No differences were found between the dietary treat-ments in the digestibility indices. The high levels of DMand OM digestibility of these diets containing syrup off canbe ascribed to their high sucrose content (94.5% on the drybasis). The very high digestibility of sucrose has been esta-blished previously (Ly, 1992; Ly et al., 1995).Trial 2. Although not a significant difference (P < 0.10),relative intake of the formaldehyde-treated diet was less(94.7%) than that of the untreated diet (Table 3). Similar re-sults were reported by Patterson et al. (1989) in studies on48 Ly et al.Table 1. Formula and nutrient composition of the basaldiet (dry basis).Component ContentIngredients (%)Syrup offTorula yeastCalcium carbonateSodium chlorideVitamins and trace elements premix1Chemical analysisDM (%)N x 6.25 (%)Ash (%)Crude fibre (%)Gross energy, kcal/g DM61.735.81.00.51.071.417.04.20.94.101Provided the following per kg of diet: 600 IU vitamin A; 160 IU vita-min D3; 20 IU vitamin E; 2 mg thiamin; 3 mg riboflavin; 15 mg pyriodo-xin; 5 mg calcium panthotenate; 25 µg vitamin B12; 300 mg choline chlo-ride; 0.5 mg folic acid; 2 mgmenadione sodium bisulphate; 0.4 mg cobalt;10 mg iron; 0.5 mg iodine.pigs fed swill protected with graded levels of formal-dehyde. However, these results are in opposition to those oftrial 1, in which the inclusion of fermented, unprotectedsyrup off decreased the voluntary feed intake. Perhaps thisdiscrepancy can be explained by the different conditions ofstorage of the syrup off in the two trials. In fact, certainsigns of pig aversion to the organoleptic characteristics ofdietary formaldehyde could explain the lower intake of thisdiet than that of the diet based on unprotected syrup off sto-red at low temperatures. (Trial 2). In contrast, in trial 1,when storage of syrup off occurred at the rather high envi-ronmental temperature, acidity of the unprotected dietmight have been associated with subclinical illness (Houptet al, 1979), and consequently lessened feed intake.Some observation on fecal characteristics are given inTable 3. No differences were found between treatments forfecal DM concentration and pH values, which are in agree-ment with the results of trial 1. However, there was a trend(P < 0.10) for daily fresh feces outflow to be higher and DMand OM digestibility to be lower for the formaldehyde-trea-ted syrup off diet. This was probably due to an increase inthe contribution of the hindgut to overall digestion, as hasbeen observed under other circumstances in pigs fed dietsbased on torula yeast and simple sugars (Ly, 1992). Patter-son et al. (1989) did not find differences in DM and OM di-gestibility when pigs were fed diets based on swill and so-ybean meal treated or not with formaldehyde. However,these comparisons are difficult to assess, since in the citedstudy the level of feed intake was considerably lower anddigestibility indices were also rather low.Data on urinary characteristics and energy balance areshown in Table 4. There were small differences betweentreatments in energy input due to the variation in DM intake(Table 3). Energy output in feces tended to be higher (P <0.10) for pigs receiving the formaldehyde-treated syrup off,but there was little difference between the urinary energylosses of pigs receiving either dietary treatment. Therefore,the estimated energy digestibility was higher (P < 0.05) inthe diet without formaldehyde. However, there was notreatment effect on any of the calculated energy retentionindices. These results support the assumption that energylosses due to microbial activity in the alimentary canalcould be responsible for the differences in energy digestibi-lity values.Formaldehyde protected syrup off 49Table 2. Rate and efficiency of liveweight and fecalcharacteristics of pigs fed diets on protected orunprotected syrup off (Trial 1).Variable Formaldehyde protection SE1(-) (+)Growth characteristicsInitial weight (kg)Final weight (kg)Daily feed intake (kg)Daily gain (g)Feed/gainFecal characteristicsDM (%)pHDigestibility (%)DMOM50.587.72.697443.6121.56.393.994.850.491.62.938243.6024.36.393.794.60.51.5*0.04*25*0.111.20.20.91.51Standard error of difference*P < 0.05.Table 3. Fecal characteristics and digestibility of pigsfed diets based on protected or unprotectedsyrup off (Trial 2).Variable Formaldehyde protection SE1(-) (+)Dry matter intake (kg/day)Fecal characteristicsFresh outflow (g/kg DM intake)Dry matter concentration (%)pHDigestibility (%)Dry matterOrganic matter1.30016525.46.195.896.71.24624924.86.193.794.60.04153+1.50.30.7+1.1+1Standard error of difference+ < 0.10Table 4. Urine characteristics and energy balance inpigs fed diets based on protected orunprotected syrup off (Trial 2).Variable Formaldehyde protection SE1(-) (+)Urine characteristicsCalorific value of N (kcal/g)Fructose (mg/dl)Energy balance (Mcal/day)IntakeFecal excretionDigestionUrinary excretionRetentionDigestibility (%)Retention (% intake)Retention (% digestion)13.384645.330.185.150.454.7096.788.291.212.483545.110.284.830.614.5094.588.093.20.48570.170.07+0.16+0.090.200.6*0.50.31Standard error of difference.+P < 0.10; *P < 0.05.Energy retention values were not corrected for urinaryN. In the present study the observed calorific value of uri-nary N was considerably higher than estimates obtainedwith diets devoid of sucrose (see for example, Müller andKirchgessner, 1983; Ravindran et al., 1984). This could beat least partially explained by the presence of fructose in theurine of pigs fed syrup off diets, in agreement with previousreports (Ly and Macias, 1979; Ly et al., 1989).Digestibility of N (Table 5) decreased (P < 0.05) as for-maldehyde was added to the diet, reflecting increased fecalexcretion of N (P < 0.10). However, N retention expressedin grams per day or percentage of either N intake or N di-gestion was unaffected by formaldehyde treatment of thediet. In this connection, the decrease in N digestion was si-milar to the depression in crude protein and DM digestionestimated in vitro for torula yeast treated with formal-dehyde by Maylin et al. (1985). Thus, the small differencesfound in vivo in favor of the untreated syrup off diet, in OMand energy digestibility, might be further explained by a re-duction in N digestibility caused by the action of formal-dehyde on torula yeast.Total tract apparent digestibility values obtained in thisexperiment for syrup off were somewhat lower when for-maldehyde was added to the diet. Nevertheless, the absenceof an influence of formaldehyde treatment on energy and Nretention could reflect the inhibition of microbial activity inthe alimentary canal. This in turn could render more nu-trients available to the host, thus counteracting the apparentnegative effect of formaldehyde on digestive processes, andsupporting better animal performance. Therefore, on balan-ce the protection of syrup off by formaldehyde during stora-ge does not appear to adversely affect the feeding value andnutrient utilization in pigs. This hypothesis involvesassumptions that could not be assessed in the present studyand remains a matter for further research.Literature CitedAOAC. 1990. OfficialMethods of Analysis (15thed.). Association of Offi-cial Analytical Chemists. Arlington, VA.Barber, R. J., R. Braude, and R. G. Mitchell. 1956. Formalin-treated skimmilk for pigs. Agriculture (London) 63:111.Février, C., J. Collet et D. Bourdon. 1973. Utilisation de divers types delactosérum dans les régimes de sevrage de porcelets et durant la pé-riode de croissance-finition. Journées Rech. Porcine France. InstitutTechnique du Porc. Paris. p. 79-86.Houpt, K. A., D. M. Zahorik, S. M. Anika, and T. R. Houpt. 1979. Tasteaversion learning in suckling and weanling pigs. Vet. Sci. Commun.3:165.Larrahondo, J. E. y T. R. Preston. 1989. Control químico de la inversión dejugos de caña de azúcar para la alimentación animal. Livest. Res.Rur. Dev. 1(1):56.Ly, J. 1992. Studies of the digestibility of pigs fed dietary sucrose, fructoseor glucose. Arch. Anim. Nutr. (Berlin) 42:1.Ly, J. and M. Castro. 1984. Pig fattening with sugarcane molasses. 1. Per-formance traits and consumption patterns. Cuban J. Agric. Sci.18:35.Ly, J., P. Lezcano, M. Castro, C. P. Díaz, and J. Díaz. 1991. Levels ofsaccharina and N and energy balance in pigs fed cereal diets. CubanJ. Agric. Sci. 25:177.Ly, J. y J. Castillo 1983. Establización del sirope de refinería de azúcarpara la ceba de cerdos. 4ta. Reun. Asoc. Cub. Prod. Anim. LaHabana2:189. Resumen.Ly, J. y M. Macias. 1989. Digestión de miel final en el cerdo. Distribuciónde fructosa en contenido digestivo, sangre y orina. Cienc. Téc. Agric.Ganado Procino 2(4):83.Ly, J., M. Macias, J. L. Reyes, and V. Figueroa. 1995. Ileal and faecal di-gestibility of Jerusalem artichokes (Helianthus tuberosus L. ) in pigs.J. Anim. Feed Sci. 4: 195.Ly, J., V. Figueroa, and A. Maylin. 1989. Post-prandial fructosuria andlacticiduria in growing pigs fed sugarcane molasses as the only car-bohydrate source in the diet. In: L. Buraczewski, S Buraczewski, B.Pastuszewska, and T. Zebrowska (eds.). Digestive Physiology in thePig. Jablonna, Poland. p. 310.Maylin, A., V. Figueroa, J. Ly, M. Hernández y E. Avila. 1985. Efecto delformaldehido sobre la digestibilidad in vitro de la levadura torula encrema. Event. Cient. XXAniv. Inst. Cienc. Anim. San José de las La-jas p. 41. (Resumen).Müller, H. I. UndM. Kirchegessner. 1983. EngergetischeVerwertung vonCellulose benim Schewein. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 49:127.Patterson,M.,M. Pérez, O. Novo y V. Figueroa. 1989. Empleo del formal-dehido como un preservante de desperdicios procesados. Cienc. Téc.Agric. Ganado Porcino 12(1):41.Pérez, R., 1997. Feeding pigs in the tropics. FAO Anim. Prod. Health Pa-per Nº 132. Rome. p 185.Ravindran, V., E. T. Kornegay, and K. E. Webb, Jr. 1984. Effects of fiberand virginiamycin on nutrient absorption, nutrient retention, and rateof passage in growing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 59:400.SAS. 1982. SAS Users Guide: Statistics. SAS inst. Inc. Cary, NC.Stanton, T. L., F. N. Owens, and N. S. Lusby. 1979. Formaldehyde treatedsoybean meal for ruminants fed range grass hay. J. Anim. Sci.(Suppl. 1). 49:47 (Abstract).Steel R, and J. Torrie. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics (2nd.Ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York.Van Keulen, J. and S. A. Young. 1977. Evaluation of acid insoluble ash asa natural marker in ruminant digestibility studies. J. Anim. Sci.44:262.50 Ly et al.Table 5. Nitrogen balance in pigs fed diets based onprotected or unprotected syrup off (Trial 2).Variable Formaldehyde protection SE1(-) (+)Balance (g/day)IntakeFecal excretionDigestionUrinary excretionRetentionDigestibility (%)Retention (% intake)Retention (% digestion)35.43.432.09.722.390.363.069.733.84.829.08.120.985.661.872.01.50.5+1.40.71.41.4*2.92.31Standard error of difference.+P < 0.10; *P < 0.05.

Formaldehyde protection of syrup off based diets for pigs.Feeding value and nutrient utilization

https://ojs.alpa.uy/index.php/ojs_files/article/download/268/251

Formaldehyde protection of syrup off based diets for pigs.Feeding value and nutrient utilization

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Latin American Archives of Animal Production