1st Page



This article in JAS

  1. Vol. 88 No. 12, p. 3887-3895
    Received: Jan 29, 2010
    Accepted: July 20, 2010
    Published: December 4, 2014

    1 Corresponding author(s):


Metabolizable energy content of refined glycerin and its effects on growth performance and carcass and pork quality characteristics of finishing pigs

  1. O. F. Mendoza*,
  2. M. Ellis 1,
  3. F. K. McKeith* and
  4. A. M. Gaines
  1. Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801; and
    The Maschhoffs, LLC, Carlyle, IL 62231



Two studies were conducted with refined glycerin (97.7 and 97.5% glycerin for studies I and II, respectively) to determine ME content and effects on growth performance and carcass and pork quality measures of finishing pigs. An energy balance study using 24 barrows (21.5 ± 0.6 kg initial BW) determined the apparent ME content of glycerin using a generalized randomized block design with 2 dietary treatments: 1) control (99.85% corn + vitamins and minerals) and 2) glycerin (30% of corn in the control diet replaced with glycerin). A 7-d adaptation was followed by a 5-d collection period for feces and urine. The energy content of diets, feces, and urine was determined by bomb calorimetry. The DE of the glycerin diet was greater (P < 0.01) than that of the control diet (4,298 vs. 3,902 kcal/kg of DM); however, the ME content of the 2 diets was similar (3,820 vs. 3,723 kcal/kg of DM). The ME of refined glycerin (estimated by difference) was 3,584 kcal/kg of DM. A growth study was conducted with 128 gilts housed in groups of 4 and reared from 92.5 ± 0.24 kg of BW for a 28-d period, using a split-plot design with a 4 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments: 1) dietary glycerin level (0, 5, 10, and 15%) and 2) preslaughter handling (gentle vs. intense). The handling treatment was included to simulate the range in handling intensities that are likely to be experienced in practice. At the end of the 28-d period, one-half of the pens on study were slaughtered and used for carcass and pork quality evaluation with 2 pigs from each pen being subjected to each of the preslaughter handling treatments. There were no interactions (P > 0.05) between dietary glycerin and preslaughter handling treatment. Dietary glycerin had no effect (P > 0.05) on growth performance, carcass measures, or meat quality. There were no differences (P > 0.05) between the gentle and intense handling treatments for carcass or pork quality measures. In conclusion, feeding glycerin to finishing pigs at up to 15% of the diet had no negative effect on growth performance or carcass and pork quality characteristics.

  Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.

Copyright © 2010. American Society of Animal Science