North Dakota State University * Dickinson Research Extension Center
1133 State Avenue, Dickinson, ND 58601 Voice: (701) 483-2348 FAX: (701) 483-2005
SWINE FEEDING TRIAL - WINTER, 1974-75
Research conducted in Montana and Oregon indicates that the hull and fiber content of barley contribute partially to the lowered performance of pigs as compared to pigs fed grains with lower fiber content. Hulless barley is reported to be superior when compared to hulled varieties, and equal to corn in feeding value fed to growing-finishing pigs.
This trial was designed to test hulless barley when fed with, and without, protein supplementation, as compared to hulled barley that was supplemented in swine growing-finishing rations. In the experiment, rations of hulled barley, oats and soybean oil meal (SBOM); hulless barley and oats; and hulless barley, oats and SBOM were compared. The rations as shown in table 1, balanced according to the National Research Council's requirements, were processed in a portable mixer grinder.
These were four Yorkshire X Duroc crossbred barrows and three straightbred Yorkshire barrows in each experimental lot. The average starting weight of the barrows was 48 pounds. Before the trial was begun all of the pigs were wormed with dichlorvos. Weights, gains and feed costs have been summarized in table 2, and the performance of the crossbred vs. straightbred barrows is shown in table 3. In addition, gains, feed efficiency and cost per hundred pounds gain were compared when a basal ration supplemented with SBOM was fed to straightbred Yorkshire and crossbred Yorkshire Duroc gilts. A summary of their performance is shown in table 4.
Summary: Pigs that were fed either supplemented hulless barely or hulled barley gained significantly better than those fed hulless barley without supplementation. There was no significant difference between hulless barley and hulled barley with respect to gain, however, the pigs fed hulless barley were more efficient as they required 38 pounds less feed per hundred pounds gain. This increase in efficiency reflected a $2.65 savings in feed costs per hundred pounds gain.
The crossbred barrows in this trial, summarized in table 3, did not gain significantly better than their straightbred counterparts.
Gains and feed efficiency of crossbred and straightbred gilts were compared when a basal ration supplemented with SBOM was fed. As indicated in table 4, the crossbred gilts showed a slight advantage for gain per day of age and feed efficiency, however, the advantage was not large enough to be statistically significant.
|Table 1 - Rations as fed - swine feeding trials - winter, 1974-75|
|Ingredients||Ration 1 Hulled Bly, 50% oats + SBOM||Ration 2 Hulless bly. + 50% oats||Ration 3 Hulless bly, 50% oats + SBOM|
|Hulled barley, lbs.||447.5||---||---|
|Hulless barley, lbs||---||487.0||485.5|
|Dicalcium phosphate, lbs.||8.0||7.5||6.0|
|Minerals & vitamins1||6.5||6.5||6.5|
|Crude protein %||15.9||16.5||18.7|
|Cost/100# feed, $||5.65||5.21||5.52|
|1Includes: 5 lbs. trace mineral salt, 1 lb. fortafeed, 45 grams vitamin B12, 30 grams vitamin A, 6 grams vitamin D3 and 180 grams zinc sulfate per 1000 lbs. complete feed.|
|Table 2 - Weights, gains and costs - swine feeding trials, winter 1974-75|
|Hulled bly. + oats + SBOM||Hulless Bly. + oats||Hulless bly. + oats + SBOM|
|Initial wt., lbs.||48||48||47|
|Final wt., lbs.||195||176||202|
|Avg. daily gain, lbs.||1.45||1.27||1.54|
|Feed/lb. gain, lbs.||4.39||4.67||4.01|
|Cost/100# gain, $||24.78||24.34||22.13|
|Table 3 - Comparison of crossbred vs. purebred barrows on three rations|
|Ration||Hulled barley, oats + SBOM||Hulless barley, oats||Hulless barley, oats + SBOM|
|X-bred||Str. bred||X-bred||Str. bred||X-bred||Str. bred|
|Initial wt., lbs.||48||49||49||48||47||47|
|Final wt., lbs.||194||197||179||173||205||199|
|Days on feed||101||101||101||101||101||101|
|Avg. daily gain, lbs.||1.44||1.47||1.29||1.24||1.57||1.52|
|Table 4 - Comparison of crossbred vs. purebred gilts fed 14.7 percent barley + SBOM ration|
|Yorkshire||Duroc X Yorkshire|
|Initial wt., lbs.||49||50|
|Final wt., lbs.||210||215|
|Avg. daily gain, lbs.||1.29||1.35|
|Feed/lb. gain, lbs.||4.84||4.67|
|Cost/100 lbs. gain, $||27.32||26.36|