Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T09:37:25.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutritional values of sugarcane products in local Caribbean growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2010

X. Xandé ,
C. Régnier ,
H. Archimède ,
B. Bocage ,
J. Noblet  and
D. Renaudeau
X. Xandé
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité de Recherches Zootechniques, UR143, 97170 Petit-Bourg, Guadeloupe, French West Indies, France
C. Régnier
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité de Recherches Zootechniques, UR143, 97170 Petit-Bourg, Guadeloupe, French West Indies, France
H. Archimède
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité de Recherches Zootechniques, UR143, 97170 Petit-Bourg, Guadeloupe, French West Indies, France
B. Bocage
Affiliation:
INRA, Plateforme Tropicale de l’Expérimentation sur l’Animal, UE503, 97170 Petit-Bourg, Guadeloupe, French West Indies, France
J. Noblet
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1079 Systèmes d’Elevage, Nutrition Animale et Humaine, 35590 St-Gilles, France
D. Renaudeau*
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité de Recherches Zootechniques, UR143, 97170 Petit-Bourg, Guadeloupe, French West Indies, France
*
†E-mail: David.Renaudeau@antilles.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

A total of 24 castrated male Creole were used for digestibility studies on three sugarcane (SC) products: final molasses, SC juice and ground SC. Digestibility of macronutrients were determined in three consecutive experimental trials between 35 and 60 kg BW. The first trial measured the effect of a constant rate of incorporation of those SC products in a control diet (23% on a dry matter (DM) basis) on digestibility of energy and nutrients. The second and the third trials were designed to determine the effects of increasing rates of inclusion of SC juice and ground SC in the control diet on the digestibility of nutrients and energy. The DM content of molasses, SC juice and ground SC were 74.3%, 19.3% and 25.8%, respectively. Free sugar contents were 73.8%, 81.6% and 51.5% of DM for molasses, SC juice and ground SC, respectively. In contrast with molasses and SC juice, NDF content of ground SC was very high (40.3% DM). Energy digestibility coefficients (DC) were 99.0% and 83.6% for SC juice and molasses, respectively. For ground SC, amounts and composition of intakes differed from feed allowance as a consequence of chewing-then-spitting out most of the fibrous contents of ground SC. Expressed as a percentage of energy intake and energy allowance, DC of energy for ground SC were 68.6% and 31.9%, respectively. On an intake basis, digestible energy (DE) and metabolisable energy (ME) values were higher for SC juice (17.3 and 17.2 MJ/kg DM, respectively) than for molasses (13.1 and 12.6 MJ/kg DM, respectively) or ground SC (12.3 and 11.8 MJ/kg DM, respectively). On an allowance basis, the corresponding values for ground SC were only 5.7 and 5.6 MJ/kg DM, respectively. The gradual inclusion rate of SC juice in the diet up to 66% resulted in a linear increase of the DC of the diet organic matter and energy (P < 0.001) by 0.10% per 1% in SC juice DM. On the other hand, the partial substitution of the control diet by ground SC up to 74% resulted in a linear (P < 0.05) reduction of digestibility of nutrients and energy. Each 1% increase of ground SC incorporation rate resulted in a 0.13% and 0.61% linear decrease of DC of the energy, expressed as a percentage of energy intake or energy allowance, respectively. In conclusion, our study provides updated energy values of SC products usable as energy sources for feeding pigs.

Keywords

Creole pigsugarcane productsdigestibilityenergy value
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 5 , May 2010 , pp. 745 - 754
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition.AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Bayley, HS, Figueroa, V, Ly, J, Maylin, A, Perez, A 1983. Utilisation of sugarcane final molasses by the pig: energy metabolism. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 63, 455–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bravo, M, Lasso, M, Esnaola, MA, Preston, TR 1996. Preliminary studies on the use of chopped sugarcane stalks as the basal diet for fattening pigs. Livestock Research for Rural Development 8. Retrieved from http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd8/3/bravo83.htmGoogle Scholar
Brooks, CC 1967. Effect of sex, fat, fibre, molasses and thyroprotein on digestibility of nutrients and performance of growing swine. Journal of Animal Science 26, 495–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christon, R, Le Dividich, J 1978. Utilisation de la mélasse de canne à sucre dans l’alimentation du porc: essai d’interprétation des acquisitions récentes. Annales de Zootechnie 27, 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueroa, V, Maylin, A, Ly, J, Pérez, A, Carrillo, O, Bayley, HS 1990. Ileal and total digestibility studies in pigs fed molasses type A or starch diets supplemented with torula yeast or soybean meal. Livestock Production Science 25, 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzàlez, D, Gonzàlez, C, Ojeda, A, Machado, W, Ly, J 2006. Growth performance of pigs feed sugarcane juice (Saccharum officinarum) and mulberry leaf meal (Morus alba). Archivos Latinoamericanos de Producción Animal 14, 42–48.Google Scholar
Henry, Y, Etienne, M 1969. Effets nutritionnels de l’incorporation de cellulose purifiée dans le régime du porc en croissance-finition. 1- Influence sur l’utilisation digestive des nutriments. Annales de Zootechnie 18, 337–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Goff, G, Noblet, J 2001. Comparative total tract digestibility of dietary energy and nutrients in growing pigs and adult sows. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2418–2427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Goff, G, van Milgen, J, Noblet, J 2002. Influence of dietary fibre on digestive utilisation and rate of passage in growing pigs, finishing pigs and adult sows. Animal Science 74, 503–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ly, MVJ, Preston, TR 1969. Digestible and metabolisable energy values for pigs of diets based on high-test molasses or final molasses and sugar. Journal of Animal Science 29, 578–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meade, GP, Chen, JCP 1977. Cane sugar handbook; a manual for cane sugar manufacturers and their chemists, 10th edition.Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Mederos, CM, Figueroa, V, Garcia, A, Aleman, E, Martinez, RM, Ly, J 2004. Growth performance of pigs fed hand-chopped sugarcane stalks. Livestock Research for Rural Development 16. Retrieved from http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd16/3/med16014.htmGoogle Scholar
Noblet, J, Shi, XS 1994. Effect of body weight on digestive utilisation of energy and nutrients of ingredients and diets in pigs. Livestock Production Science 72, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noblet, J, Bontems, V, Tran, G 2003. Estimation de la valeur énergétique des aliments chez le porc. INRA Productions Animales 16, 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noblet, J, Shi, XS, Fortune, H, Dubois, S, Lechevestrier, Y, Corniaux, C, Sauvant, D, Henry, Y 1994. Teneur en énergie nette des aliments chez le porc. Mesure, prédiction et validation aux différents stades de sa vie. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 26, 235–250.Google Scholar
Preston, TR 1995. Research, extension and training for sustainable farming systems in the tropics. Livestock Research for Rural Development 7. Retrieved from http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd7/2/1.htmGoogle Scholar
Preston, TR, Leng, RA 1989. The greenhouse effect and its implications for world agriculture. The need for environmentally friendly development. Livestock research for rural development. 1. Retrieved from http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd1/1/preston.htmGoogle Scholar
Preston, TR, MacLeod, NA, Lassota, L, Willis, MB, Velazquez, M 1968. Sugar cane products as energy sources for pigs. Nature 219, 727–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renaudeau, D, Bocage, B, Noblet, J 2006. Influence of energy intake on protein and lipid deposition in Creole and Large White growing pigs in a humid tropical climate. Animal Science 82, 937–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rostagno, HS 2005. Brazilian tables for poultry and swine: composition of feedstuffs and nutritional requirements, 2th edition.Universidade Federal de Viçosa. Departamento de zootecnìa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil, 186p.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. 1997. SAS/STAT user’s guide: version 7, 4th edition.SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Perez, JM, Tran, G 2002. Tables de composition et de valeur nutritive des matières premières destinées aux animaux d’élevage. AFZ-INRA, pp. 1–301.Google Scholar
Tollier, MTh, Robin, JP 1979. Adaptation de la méthode à l’orcinol sulfurique au dosage automatique des glucides neutres totaux: conditions d’application aux extraits d’origine végétale. Annales de Technologie Agricole 28, 1–15.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Wine, RH 1967. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. Journal of the AOAC 50, 50–55.Google Scholar
Xandé, X, Despois, E, Giorgi, M, Gourdine, JL, Archimède, H, Renaudeau, D 2009. Influence of sugarcane diets and a high fibre commercial diet on growth and carcass performance in local Caribbean pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 22, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar