Back to contents

Citation of this paper
Utilization of sweet potato to improve the economics productivity of pig production in Cambodia

Utilization of sweet potato to improve the economics productivity of pig production in Cambodia

ChhumPhith Loan and Sann Vathana

Royal University of Agriculture, Faculty of Animal Production and Health

Abstract

The experiment was conducted in the animal experimental station of the Royal University of Agriculture for 15 weeks to determine the effects of replacing maize with sweet potato (SP) in the diet of growing-fattening pig on their growth rate feed intake and feed conversion ratio. The experiment was completely randomized design by using 32 of 6 weeks old piglets with 7.61Kg ± 0.802 in initial weight divided into 4 treatments, A, B, C and D and 4 replications. Replacement of maize with SP was arranged with 0%, 20%, 30% and 40% in A, B, C and D in the basal diet with 18% of crude protein respectfully. As the result, it is found that group B (28.94 ± 2.06) gained live weight better than A (23.46 ± 4.53), C (23.29 ± 3.83) and D (25.16 ± 3.91) (p<0.01). Non-significant difference in feed intake between the groups was noted whereas the feed conversion ratio was pointed out that group B (3.72 ± 0.17) is tendency better than A (4.56 ± 0.79), C (5.20 ± 1.73) and D (4.40 ± 1.05). It is concluded that utilization of SP to replace half amount of maize in the diet of growing-fattening pig bring about the economical value for the farmer income.


Introduction

Farmers with land close to the Mekong River cultivate sweet potato for human food and for commercial purposes. The price of sweet potato roots is relatively cheaper than for other energy-rich crops and they are available in all the seasons in Cambodia. The roots of sweet potato are rich in carbohydrate which accounts for up to 80 to 90% of the dry weight (Dominguez, 1992). The red skin type of sweet potato has a crude protein content of about 9% which higher than most of the white skin varieties (FAO, 1998). According to Noblet et al. (1990) the digestibility of the nitrogen in the roots is 52.3%.

The objective of the experiment was to determine effects on growth rate and feed conversion ratio of incorporating sweet potato roots as partial replacement of maize in diet for growing-fattening pigs.


Material and Methods

The experiment was carried out at the research station of the Royal University of Agriculture during November 2001 to February 2002. Animal were raised on the cement concrete floor and under grass roof. It is used 32 of 6 week-old piglets with 7.61Kg ± 0.802 in initial weight were purchased from the villages. The experiment was completely randomized design with 4 treatments A, B, C and D and 4 replications. As shown in the Tab. 1 it is distinguished in the diet formulation by replacing 0%, 20%, 30% and 40% of maize with sweet potato. Feeding is ad libitum. The piglets were weighed individually bi-weekly. The offer feed and its residues was record daily. The red-skinned variety of SP root was used by chopped in small pieces and sun-dried. The data are analysed by ANOVA using SPSS/PC+.

Table 1: Feed formulation

Categories

A

B

C

D

Maize

42

22

12

2

Rice bran

25

25

25

25

Sweet potato

0

20

30

40

Soy bean

30

30

30

30

Vitamin

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

Premix

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

Shell

2.15

2.15

2.15

2.15

Salt

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

CP in DM, %

18.6

18.0

18.6

18.6

ME (Kcal)

2856

2858

2859

2859

 

Resultsand Discussion

The result of the experiment is described in table 2 and in Graphic 1

.

The average live weight of piglet by using of different treatment during the trial (3.5 months) is shown in Table 1 and Graphic 1. The treatment 1 has a tendency significance higher live weight than control, treatment 2 and 3 (p£0.01). This is in agreement with report of Lee and Lee (1979), Lee and Yang (1979) and Manfredini et al. (1990) that daily gain was increased when sweet potato chips were replaced half of the corn in diet. In Table 2, there was no significant difference for feed intake between the treatments, but the feed conversion ratio by treatment 1 was better than other treatments.

 

 

Table 2: The overall result of the experiment

Parameter

Control

Treat 1

Treat 2

Treat3

Number

X

8

8

8

8

Final weight, kg

`X

23.46a

28.94b

23.29a

25.16a

S±

4.53

2.06

3.83

3.91

Feed intake

`X

608.11

651.62

607.95

652.96

S±

228.62

197.72

225.10

198.81

FCR

`X

3.99

3.64

4.42

4.33

S±

1.29

1.34

1.97

1.94

Conclusions

It is concluded that the utilization of sweet potato chips as an energy source to replace maize in the diet of growing fattening pigs can improve the farmer income. Up to 13th week it is pointed out that pigs consumed diet by replacing half among of maize with sun-dried sweet potato have tendency significantly higher than those in control group in body weight. On the other hand, the feed conversion ratio of pigs consumed 20% of sweet potato in the diet has relatively low than other treatments. However, it is recommended that using sweet potato in the diet of growing fattening pigs should not exceed than 20% due to the an nutrition substance contained in the root.

References

Lee, P. K. and Lee, M. S. 1979: Study on hog feed formulae using high protein sweet potato chips and dehydrated sweet potato vines as the main ingredient. Journal of Taiwan Livestock Research 12(1) 49-71

Lee, P. K. and Yang, Y. F. 1979: Comparative study of high protein sweet potato chips and common sweet potato chips as substitute for corn grain in diet on growth, feed efficiency and carcass quality of the growing fattening pigs. Journal of Taiwan Livestock Research 12(1) 31-48

Manfredini, M., Badiani, A., Chizzolini, R., Nanni, N. and Novelli, E. 1990. Sweet potatoes (Ipomea batatas) in heavy pig fattening. 36th International Congress of Meat Sciences and Technology Havana, Cuba. 98-106

Dominguez, P. L. (1992) In: Roots, tubers, plantains and bananas in animal feeding. Machin, D. and Nyvold, S. (eds) FAO animal Production and Health Paper No 95, 217-234

FAO 1998: Tropical Feeds Database

Noblet, J., Fortune, H., Dupire, C. and Dubois, S. 1990: Sweet potato in pig nutrition, In Journees Rech. Porcine en France 22(175)

Annex 1: Average body weight of pig by different treatments

Week

Parameter

Control

Treat 1

Treat 2

Treat3

F-value

P

1

n

8.00

8.00

8.00

8.00

0.45

0.721

`X

7.53

7.43

7.61

7.88

S±

0.49

0.58

0.94

1.12

3

`X

8.30

8.38

8.39

8.03

1.10

0.368

S±

1.04

1.24

0.53

0.65

5

`X

9.88

10.18

9.78

10.65

0.39

0.758

S±

1.89

0.73

1.92

2.18

7

`X

12.45

12.83

12.38

12.64

0.06

0.978

S±

2.18

1.28

2.77

2.46

9

`X

14.39

14.45

14.25

15.60

0.36

0.783

S±

2.58

1.29

2.96

4.20

11

`X

16.58

17.15

17.50

20.56

2.01

0.135

S±

4.46

2.07

8.57

3.71

13

`X

20.66

25.09

20.13

22.26

2.82

0.57

S±

4.72

2.30

3.73

3.86

15

`X

23.46

28.94

23.29

25.16

4.03

0.017

S±

4.53

2.06

3.83

3.91

Annex 2: Average Feed Intake and Feed Conversion Ratio of pigs in weeks by different treatments

Week

Parameter

Feed Intake

Feed Conversion Ratio

Control

Treat. 1

Treat. 2

Treat. 3

Control

Treat. 1

Treat. 2

Treat. 3

1

`X

265.85

349.11

252.01

317.86

4.97

5.16

4.65

4.05

S±

103.17

85.54

105.63

123.12

1.23

0.49

0.92

1.17

3

`X

405.36

471.43

411.16

476.79

3.62

3.72

4.62

4.73

S±

65.14

45.83

61.41

48.11

0.25

0.55

1.51

1.65

5

`X

489.29

536.61

507.14

558.93

3.31

2.92

2.99

4.25

S±

93.16

57.79

58.91

37.06

1.71

0.51

1.05

1.20

7

`X

562.86

612.05

553.13

629.91

4.54

5.32

4.45

3.78

S±

56.55

67.75

87.00

50.55

1.43

0.59

1.32

1.88

9

`X

596.88

677.23

617.86

685.27

4.28

3.89

3.75

2.34

S±

70.56

37.92

65.84

24.67

1.50

1.37

1.84

1.41

11

`X

697.32

723.66

680.36

724.55

3.30

3.28

4.62

6.88

S±

88.51

60.19

73.35

48.03

0.15

0.21

3.93

3.37

13

`X

816.67

820.14

818.75

824.31

4.38

3.11

5.11

4.21

S±

60.68

63.26

77.43

67.06

0.84

0.16

2.68

0.70

15

`X

994.64

988.39

995.54

975.89

4.56

3.72

5.20

4.40

S±

29.19

41.53

36.21

42.30

0.79

0.17

1.73

1.05