Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-qdpjg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-20T23:58:13.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of particle size and liquid feeding on the performance of young pigs offered mash and steam pelleted diets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2017

K. A. Chesworth ,
M. Choct  and
P. H. Brooks
K. A. Chesworth
Affiliation:
School of Rural Science & Natural Resources, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351 Australia
M. Choct
Affiliation:
School of Rural Science & Natural Resources, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351 Australia
P. H. Brooks
Affiliation:
School of Rural Science & Natural Resources, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351 Australia
Get access

Extract

There is a well-established relationship between particle size of processed grains in diets and pig performance. It has been reported that as the particle size of feed is reduced there is an increase in the performance of pigs (Wondra et al., 1995). Increasing the surface area of feed ingredients by reducing particle size facilitates greater enzyme activity. Liquid feed provides an excellent medium for endogenous enzyme activation and the opportunity to improve the availability of nutrients (Brooks et al., 1996). The current study investigated the effect of particle size, processing and feed form on pig performance.

Type
Threatre Presentations
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 2001 , 2001 , pp. 9
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2001

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

Brooks, P.H., Geary, T.M., Morgan, D.T. and Campbell, A. (1996) Pig Journal. 36: 43–64.Google Scholar
Wondra, K.J., Hancock, J.D., Behnke, K.C., Hines, R.H. and Starck, C.R. (1995) Journal of Animal Science. 73: 757–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar