JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Comparative Feeding Values of Soybean Hulls and Wheat Bran for Growing and Finishing Swine
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Comparative Feeding Values of Soybean Hulls and Wheat Bran for Growing and Finishing Swine
Chee, Kew M.; Chun, Kwang S.; Huh, Bong D.; Choi, Jin H.; Chung, Mahn K.; Lee, Hyung S.; Shin, In S.; Whang, Kwang Y.;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Feeding values of soybean hulls (SH) were compared to those of wheat bran (WB) for swine diets by chemical compositions, a digestion trial, a preference test by self-selection, and two feeding trials. The SH and the WB appeared to have, on airdry basis, 11.1 vs. 15.4% CP, 32.5 vs. 8.7% crude fiber (CF), 36.8 vs. 10.7% ADF, 0.6 vs. 0.1% Ca, and 492 vs. 92 ppm Fe, respectively. Lysine and total sulfur-containing amino acids in the SH were 0.66 vs. 0.37%, respectively. Apparent digestibility values of the SH were 71% for dry matter, 50% for CP, and 74% for CF. Apparent digestible energy and MEn values of the SH were 2,420 and 2,370 kcal kg, respectively, which were comparable to those of the WB, 2,420 and 2,275 kcal kg (NRC, 1998), respectively. The first feeding trial was conducted with 72 crossbred growing pigs with an average weight of 29.6 kg. The pigs when fed the diets containing 0, 6 and 10% SH by replacing the WB on a weight basis for 42 days did not show significant differences in body weight gain and feed/gain ratio among the treatments. The same trends were observed in the second trial with 60 crossbred finishing pigs with an average weight of 64.5 kg when fed the diets containing 12% SH or WB for 41 days. Back-fat thickness and adjusted loin eye muscle area of the finisher pigs were also not significantly different between the two groups. When allowed to self-select from two different feed troughs containing 10% SH or WB for two weeks, two groups of 80 pigs with 10 pigs per pen consumed the two diets exactly in equal proportion. In conclusion, the soybean hulls can be included up to 10 and 12% for growing or finishing pig diets, respectively, replacing the wheat bran on a weight basis without any adverse effects on palatability of diets and animal performances.
 Keywords
Comparative Feeding Values;Soybean Hulls;Wheat Bran;Digestible Energy;Swine;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, Virginia.

2.
AOCS. 1976. Official and tentative methods of the American Oil Chemists’ Society. Urease activity. Official Method Ba 9-58.

3.
Bhar, R., N. N. Pathak and S. Paul. 2000. Performance of crossbred (Landrace${\times}$local India) finisher barrows fed maize or wheat bran based diets: Short note. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 13:1429-1432.

4.
Chabeauti, E., J. Noblet and B. Carre. 1991. Digestion of plant cell walls from four different sources in growing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 32:207-213.

5.
Cole, J. T., G. C. Fahey Jr., N. R. Merchen, A. R. Patil, S. M. Murray, H. S. Hussein and J. L. Brent Jr. 1999. Soybean hulls as a dietary fiber source for dogs. J. Anim. Sci. 77:917-924.

6.
Drewry, K. J. 1977. Indiana on-farm boar testing program and rules. Purdue University, AS-380.

7.
Goering, H. E. and P. J. Van Soest. 1970. Forage fiber analysis. In Agr. Handbook. ARS, USDA, Beltsville. M D.

8.
Huh, M. S., M. H. Shin, Y. B. Lee and H. S. Sohn. 1999. Effects of soybean hull iron on growth, iron bioavailability, and behavioral function in anemic rats induced by iron deficiency during gestation or lactation. Nutr. Res. 19:1749-1761.

9.
Kornegay, E. T. 1978. Soybean hulls for growing, finishing swine. Feedstuffs. May 1, pp. 24-26.

10.
Kornegay, E. T., H. R. Thomas, S. R. Arthur, C. L. Gaines, K. L. Bryant and J. M. Knoght. 1981a. Pigs per cage, flooring materials and use of soybean hulls in starter diets for pigs housed in triple deck nurseries. J. Anim. Sci. 51:285-293.

11.
Kornegay, E. T. 1981b. Soybean hull digestibility by sows and feeding value for growing-finishing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 53:138-145.

12.
Leeson, S. and J. D. Summer. 2001. Scott’s Nutrition of the Chicken. 4th ed. University Books, Guelph.

13.
Mitaru, B. N., R. Blair, R. D. Reichert and W. E. Roe. 1984. Dark and yellow rapeseed hulls, soybean hulls and a purified fiber source: Their effects on dry matter, energy, protein and amino acid digestibilities in cannulated pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 59:1510-1518.

14.
National Research Council. 1998. Nutrient Requirements of Swine. 10th ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

15.
Noblet, J. and G. Le Goff. 2001. Effect of dietary fiber on the energy value of feeds for pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 90:35-52.

16.
Pond, W. G., D. C. Church and K. R. Pond. 1995. Basic Animal Nutrition and Feeding. 4th ed. Wiley, New York.

17.
SAS Institute Inc. 1989. SAS User’s Guide: Ver. 6. 4th ed. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

18.
Scott, M. L., M. C. Nesheim and R. J. Young. 1982. Nutrition of the Chicken. 3rd ed. M.L. Scott and Associates, Ithaca, New York.

19.
Schneider, B. H. and W. P. Flatt. 1975. The evaluation of feeds through digestibility experiments. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.

20.
Shriver, J. A., S. D. Carter, A. L. Sutton, B. T. Richter, B. W. Senne and L. A. Pettery. 2003. Effects of adding fiber sources to reduced-crude protein, amino acid-supplemented diets on nitrogen excretion, growth performance, and carcass traits of finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 81:492-502.

21.
Steel, R. G. D. and J. H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New York.

22.
Williams, C. H., D. J. David and O. Ilsmaa. 1962. The determination of chromic oxide in fecal samples by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. J. Agric. Sci. 59:381-385.