SOKOINE UNIVERSITY OF
AGRICULTURE
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL,
AQUACULTURE AND RANGE SCIENCES
DEGREE PROGRAME; B.Sc.
ANIMAL SCIENCE
RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT
TITTLE: EFFECTS OF
SUBSTITUTION OF FARMER’S FEED (FF) BY HYDROPONIC SORGHUM FODDER (HSF) ON
VOLUNTARY INTAKE AND GROWTH PERFORMANCE OF WEANER PIGS.
BY
JOACHIM, JOSEPH
REGISRATION NUMBER;
ANS/D/2013/0032
SUPERVISOR; Prof. ABOUD. A. A. O
A SPECIAL PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED IN A PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BARCHELOR OF ANIMAL SCIENCE OF SOKOINE
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE. MOROGORO, TANZANIA.
JULY 2016
A study was carried out to evaluate the effects of substituting
Farmers Feed by Hydroponic Sorghum Fodder (HSF) on feed intake and growth
performance of the weaner pigs. A total of 9 weaner pigs arranged in three
replicates were assigned to three treatment diets i.e. T1, T2,and T3
corresponding respectively to 100% Hydroponic sorghum Fodder ( HSF), 50% HSF
and 0% HSF ( Control in which only
Farmer Feed was used). The HSF was harvested at seventh day of post
germination. The feeding trial lasted for four weeks after seven days of preliminary
period. Proximate analysis was done on the seven day old HSF at DASP
laboratory.
Findings showed that
HSF harvested at 7 days post-germination had 89.34%DM, 29.92%CP, and 7.49% CF; 1.62%Ash
and 2.84%EE.
The mean DMI (g/day)
for T1, T2 and T3 were respectively 491.93±78.38; 477.82±78.38 and for 496.05±96.00. The difference being not
significant among treatments (P= 0.43). The ADG for T1, T2 and T3 were respectively
339.28±1.13, 351.19±1.13 and 357.14±1.38. There were no significant difference in
ADG (g/day) among all treatments were p- value (P= 0.88)
It can be concluded
that home grown Hydroponic Sorghum Fodder can replace Farmers Feed but one may
need to consider the comparative cost of the two before adopting the HSF.
I, Joachim Joseph, hereby declare that to the best of my
knowledge, this report is my own work and has not been submitted for a degree
award at any higher learning institution.
Name of the student……JOACHIM
JOSEPH
Signature……………………………………………………………………………
Date………………………………………………………………………………..
Name of the supervisor.....
Prof. ABOUD. A. A. O
Signature……………………………………………………………………………..
Date…………………………………………………………………………………
It’s my proud privilege to release the feeling of gratitude to
almighty God and several persons who helped me directly to conduct my research
project report for the partial fulfillment of undergraduate degree program at
SUA. I express my heartfull ineptness and owe a deep sense of gratitude to
Higher Education Student Loan Board (HESLB) for sponsoring my special project
research and entire study period and department of animal, aquaculture and
range sciences for being my experimental host.
I am extremely thankful to my researcher supervisor Prof A.A ABOUD for giving his time and
his guidance, encouragement, suggestion and very constructive critism have
contributed immensely to the evolution of my ideas throughout the entire
research period and Prof F.P LEKULE who
provided me with the experimental animal (pigs) as well as FF.
I also thanks Mr. Moses DASP for his collaboration during entire
period of data collection and Laboratory Mr. Alute and Michael for assisting me
during proximate analysis of the fodder.
I a m also indebted to my parent, my farther JOACHIM MALKIADI
for his courage and material support toward extreme successful of my research. Also my exceptional gratitude are to my
beloved sister (Selina Joachim). Lastly I would like to thanks all the DASP
academic stuffs for their cooperation, my friends and classmates for their
support and inspirational words I do not have anything to pay you but may
almighty God bless you all.
This research report is dedicated to my father and grandparents
who taught me that the best kind of knowledge to have is that which is learned
for its own sake. It is also dedicated to my uncle who taught me that even the
largest task can be accomplished if it is done one step at a time.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
LIST OF APPENDIX
% percentage
ADG Average Daily Gain
ANF Anti Nutritional Factor
CF Crude Fiber
CF Crude fiber
CP Crude Protein
CP Crude protein
CP Crude Protein
DM Dry Matter
FF Farmers Feed
HSFM Hydroponic
Sorghum Fodder
NFT Nutrient Film
(flow) Technique.
Kg kilogram
g Gram
VFI Voluntary Feed Intake
DASP Department of Animal Science and Production
EE Ether Extract
CHAPTER ONE
1.1 Background information
Pig farming is the raising
and breeding of domestic pigs. Pigs are raised principally as food and
sometimes for their skin. Pigs are capable of being in different styles of farming:
Intensive commercial units, commercial free range enterprises, extensive
farming - being allowed to wander around a village, town or city, or tethered
in a simple shelter or kept in a pen outside the owner’s house (Angier, Natalie 10
November 2009).
Currently the number of
pigs increasing in Tanzania where we have population of 1.9 million pigs
(http://www.mifugo.go.tz), but the alerting issue for pig’s production is
commonly the cost of food. Feed cost in pig farming may consume up to 80% of
total production cost in the enterprise. This has often led some farmers to either
underfeed their pigs or choose wrong type of low cost materials as feed for
their animals. The common practice in Tanzania is to use kitchen left overs as
feed for pigs. Such practice has resulted in frequent cases of food poisoning
as well as poor finishing of carcasses.
In recent years farmers in Kenya have adopted a system of using hydroponic
fodder for rearing pigs. Initial findings show that such practice is both
economic and gives better carcasses. However Kenyan farmers have centered their
feed production on barley as principal hydroponic fodder. Barley is not
commonly produced in Tanzania; a factor that should call upon scientist to look
for suitable alternatives.
1.2 Problem identification and justification
Pigs in Tanzania are usually
fed on kitchen leftovers. Kitchen leftovers are not consistent in quality and
could be a source of infections to the pig. This practice of using kitchen left
overs is one of the main reasons for poor performance in the pig industry.
Standardized commercial formations are expensive and often not available. It is
important that alternatives are sought to help framers raise pigs more
profitably. Use of Hydroponic Fodder is proven beneficial in Kenya. No studies
have been made in Tanzania to assess the feasibility and benefits of using Hydroponic
Fodder for pigs production, hence the need for this proposed study.
Ø To produce and measure the nutritive quality of hydroponic sorghum
as fodder for feeding pigs with the view to publishing guidelines for on-farm production of high
quality feed for pigs.
Ø To
conduct on-farm production of sorghum hydroponic fodder as a pig feed.
Ø To
determine the nutritive quality of the hydroponically produced sorghum through proximate
analysis.
Ø To
evaluate the voluntary intake of pig on sorghum fodder produced hydroponically.
Ø To
determine the growth rate of pig by feeding different level of hydroponic
sorghum fodder.
2.1
Hydroponic Fodder Production (HFP)
Hydroponic fodder
production is the practice of growing fodder without the use of soil .This
technology has its origin in ancient hanging gardens of Babylon. For commercial
purposes to feed livestock, it started in 1960s in Australia and has spread to
the rest of the world ever since.
Hydroponics technology can be adopted using locally available materials to
control temperature thereby making hydroponic farming a reality. (Gatti, 2002).
Hydroponics fodder is young tender grass grown from a cereal
grain mostly barley, in just 5-7 days.
In essence it replaces grains like Dairy meal, pig’s feeds and poultry
feed concentrates. Hydroponics fodder is
considered the best livestock feed (Logsdon, Gene (2004).
2.1.1 Principles of Hydroponic systems:
Hydroponic
system is based on an arrangement whereby plants are grown in media other than
soil. Generally such media are constitute by nutrient rich solutions in which
plant roots are suspend to trap nutrients required for growth and development.
Hydroponics are often described as soilless culture. There are three basic
components in hydroponics, these are:
- The
nutrient solution source- this is usually tank into a solution rich in
plant nutrients is held. This tank is connected via pipes to the growing
beds where nutrients are delivered in a form of nutrient film passing
under the roots.
- The
growing beds- these are the platforms on to which the plants are placed.
There are several type of arrangements for plants placements. These are
arrangements are described under section 2.2.2.
- The recirculation unit- this is usually a
reservoir into which spent water is collected and then recycled into the
primary (source tank) where it is replenished with new nutrient solution
to maintain the right levels of nutrient strength in the circulating
water.
Hydroponic system can be done into different
ways depending on the materials and costs. The needs to invest in starting the system
require cost of the materials and their availability for the introduction of
hydroponic system is concern.
In order to ensure efficiency and
effectiveness of the hydroponic system principles of designing should be
compact as shown below.
The basic wick:
The Wick system is by far
the simplest type of hydroponic system. This is a passive system, which means
there are no moving parts. The nutrient solution is drawn into the growing
medium from the reservoir with a wick. The biggest drawback of this system is
that plants that are large or use large amounts of water may use up the
nutrient solution faster than the wick(s) can supply it.
The non-recirculating
(“air-gap”) system: The roots hang into a nutrient solution reservoir, with the
upper part of the root mass suspended in air (air roots to take up needed
oxygen) and the lower part of the root mass in direct contact with the nutrient
solution (water and nutrient roots) .Through this system any crops can be
grown. (http://www.simplyhydro.com/hydrou.htm)
The raft or floating
system: Plants are suspended through Styrofoam boards which float on the
surface of the nutrient solution. Oxygen must be supplied to the roots using an
aquarium pump and air stones or a “venturi” system. If large Styrofoam cups,
filled with perlite or other media, are used, and positioned so that most of
the cup is out of the solution, no pump is needed, it is liquid or closed
system best for lettuce and herbs.
The flood and drain
(or ebb and flow) system: The roots grow down through an aggregate. The nutrient solution
is pumped into the aggregate medium, floods the root zone for a short time, and
is then allowed to drain back into the reservoir, it is the aggregate or closed
system best for lettuce and herbs. (http://www.simplyhydro.com/hydrou.htm)
The top feeder
system: The roots grow down through an aggregate. The nutrient solution
is delivered to the top of the aggregate medium, percolates through and then
either drains to waste or is recirculated into a reservoir. Its aggregate or
closed system any crops can be grown.
Nutrient film (flow)
technique (NFT): The roots may be growing from Rockwool blocks or through cups
filled with an aggregate for support but ultimately hang into a slightly
slanted tube or trough. The nutrient solution is pumped to the higher end,
flows past the hanging roots and then back to the reservoir. Its liquid-Aggregate
or closed system best for lettuce and herbs.
Aeroponics: The roots are suspended in
an enclosed space and, at regular intervals, sprayed with nutrient solution.
Its liquid or closed system best for root crops (medicinal) but any crops could
be grown. (Resh 1981).
Ø Minimal labor
Ø High yield in a small area
Ø Control over feed quality
Ø Lower operating costs
Ø Less feed waste
Ø Reduced feed storage costs
Ø Minimized veterinary costs
- For
the environment conservation
Ø No fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides
Ø Lower water consumption
Ø Reduced impact of transporting feed
- Reduced water
usage, the hydroponic system requires a
fraction of the water usage of conventional farming while still supplying
high quality stock feed. It takes between 800ml to 1 liters of water to
produce one kilo of fodder as compared with 80 – 90 litres of water to
grow a kilo of green grass.
- Fast growth and
early maturity; this is because the seed
does not use a lot of energy and time to break the soil.
- High Nutritional
Value:
Fodders that harvested when still young have high nutritional value
compared to the fodders that reach maturity, the nutrients tend to
decrease as the plant grow this because some nutrients get lost through
evaporation also other nutrients are get used by the plant itself.
- Marginal Land Use.
Since hydroponic system involve using trays and other materials which are
not soil (soil less culture) provide the room for the available land to be
used for other activities while hydroponic fodder production is in
progress.
- Elimination of
soil-borne diseases:
like bacterial wilts and nematodes.
- Constant Food
Supply:
Farmers using this type of fodder production are guaranteed a consistent
supply of quality
fodder 365
days of the
year irrespective of
rain or sunshine.
- Reduced Labour
requirement:
Require less number of laborers because of easiness management no weed
control also can be practiced at home in our residences.
Cost effective : Since it require less
number of laborers it reduce the cost
for production because cost for paying
laborers will be saved hence cost for production and other managements will be
low.
Barley is a cereal grain
that is commonly used in the finishing rations of cattle in the United States
and Canada. These sprouts are high in protein and fiber, and are naturally
balanced in protein, fat and energy. Compared to corn, barley fodder has 95% of
the energy and higher digestibility. Barley fodder is one of the most
nutritious sprouts and is full of essential nutrients, vitamins and minerals.
Feeding barley fodder will improve the overall health and wellbeing of the animals.
(J. Dobraszczyk, Bogdan 2001).
Feeding barley fodder
offers these benefits to livestock:
Reduced occurrence of
digestive diseases, such as colic and bloat, stimulated immune system,
naturally balanced with essential nutrients, high in fiber, energy and protein,
rich in enzymes, low acid content and highly digestible
Table 1: Nutritional composition of barley fodder
|
CONTENT
|
DM1
|
|
Moisture
|
85.02%
|
|
Dry Matter
|
14.98%
|
|
CONTENT
|
Unit (g/KgDM )
|
|
Crude Protein
|
196.9
|
|
NDF (w/ Na2SO3)
|
285.3
|
|
ND-ICP est (w/o Na2SO3
|
31.5
|
|
Fat (EE)
|
34.2
|
|
Ash
|
35.6
|
|
Calcium
|
1.8
|
|
Phosphorus
|
5.9
|
|
Magnesium
|
2.3
|
|
Potassium
|
6.3
|
|
TDN
|
713.9
|
|
NFC
|
457.8
|
Source (J. Dobraszczyk, Bogdan
2001).
Wheat (Triticum spp) is a
cereal grain, originally from the Levant region of the Near East but now cultivated
worldwide. . When grown hydroponically, red wheat fodder has many nutritional
advantages of all the classes of wheat available in the United States, red
wheat has the highest protein composition. It is also high in energy and the
starches in wheat ferment quickly in ruminant digestion. (Chris Gatti in the
Daily News, 2002).
Sprouted red wheat fodder
has many benefits for livestock, including:
High in protein, naturally
present enzymes, Lowered pH in rumen and Good source of energy
Table 2: Nutritional composition of Wheat fodder
|
CONTENT
|
DM1
|
|
Moisture
|
75.93%
|
|
Dry Matter
|
24.07%
|
|
CONTENT
|
Unit (g/KgDM )
|
|
Crude Protein
|
159.7
|
|
NDF (w/ Na2SO3)
|
190.7
|
|
Fat (EE)
|
25.1
|
|
Ash
|
27.2
|
|
Calcium
|
1.1
|
|
Phosphorus
|
5.4
|
|
Magnesium
|
2.5
|
|
Potassium
|
5
|
|
TDN
|
769.2
|
|
NFC
|
597.3
|
Source (Moon, David 2008)
Sorghum is a genus of plants in the grass family. Most species are native to
Australia, with some extending to Africa, Asia,
Mesoamerica, and certain islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. One species is grown for grain,
while many others are used as fodder plants, either
intentionally cultivated or allowed to grow naturally, in pasture lands. The plants are cultivated in
warm climates worldwide and naturalized in many places. Sorghum is in the subfamily Panicoideae and the tribe Andropogoneae. Sorghum is a grass that is rich in
antioxidants and high in fat. There are numerous varieties of sorghum and it is
grown all over the world as a staple for humans and livestock. In the United
States, sorghum is grown primarily for its grains that are used in livestock
rations. Hydroponically grown sorghum fodder has many nutritional advantages
and, in fodder production, it is commonly used as a supplement to provide more
fat. (Watson, Andrew M 1983)
Table 3: Nutritional
composition of sorghum fodder.
|
CONTENT
|
DM1
|
|
Moisture
|
84.74%
|
|
Dry Matter
|
15.26%
|
|
CONTENT
|
Unit
(g/KgDM )
|
|
Crude Protein
|
163.9
|
|
NDF (w/ Na2SO3)
|
321.3
|
|
ND-ICP est (w/o Na2SO3
|
26.2
|
|
Fat (EE)
|
46.5
|
|
Ash
|
34.5
|
|
Calcium
|
4.3
|
|
Phosphorus
|
4.1
|
|
Magnesium
|
4.2
|
|
Potassium
|
3.8
|
|
TDN
|
719.9
|
|
NFC
|
441.9
|
Source
(Johnson .2009.)
It’s scientifically
analyzed that hydroponically grown fodder has 80% increase in essential
minerals, barley fodder provide 30 times more vitamin B, than milk, 22 times
more vitamin C than citrus and nearly 5 times the iron of spinach. It also has a strong resistance to diseases
and fungus. Feeding fodder will also provide these benefits to pigs: earlier
breeding, improved gut function, improved behavior and temperament, faster
weight gain, easier weaning, higher quality meat with better texture, more
piglets and Longer milking period hence strong piglets. (Agrotek Greenhouse
fodder systems, 2002).
Hydroponics nutrients
increase protein content from 9% when in barley seed to 25% protein after 7
days as hydroponics fodder. Because of
high protein content of the fodder Dairy Cattle are fed with hydroponics fodder
plus dry pasture without concentrates like dairy meal or protein based feeds
like soya, sunflower. The revolutionary hydroponic technologies are a method of
growing crops using mineral nutrient solutions in water and without soil.
Although hydroponics relies primarily on water, the system is efficient in
managing the resource. Studies have indicated that hydroponics systems are at
least 10 times more efficient in water usage in comparison to field farming. (www.Kenya’s Smallholder Dairy Farmers Invest
in Hydroponic Technology).
Figure 2; pig feeding on hydroponic
barley fodder. Source (Logsdon, Gene 2004)
Figure 3; production of hydroponic barley fodder. Source (J.
Dobraszczyk, Bogdan 2001).
The study was carried out at
department of animal, aquaculture and range sciences piggery unit- SUA
Morogoro, Tanzania. The farm is located between 6.850S and 37.650E
E and altitude of about 550m above sea level. The area receives an average
annual rainfall of around 800mm and
experiences day temperature ranging between 20 to 27° C in the coolest months
(April to September) and 30 to 32° C during the hottest months (October to
March).
3.2 MATERIALS
Materials used during the
experiment:
1. Sorghum seeds
2. Complete 35 tray
Hydroponic Unit
3. Nutrient
solution.
4. Measuring cylinder
5. Weighing balance
3.3 Experimental animals
Nine (9) weaner pigs
weighing 8 kilograms average live weight was collected from Lekule’s piggery
unit at Mazimbu.
3.4 Experimental layout
Nine weaner pigs were randomly alloted to three experimtal diets for the
measurement of VFI over a period of four weeks. This period was preceeded by 7
days of prelimainary period. Three animals were used as replicates for each
experimental diet and another set of three animals was used as control.
Experiemntal diets: The experimental diet is hydroponic
sorghum fodder which will be used as the treatment. The fodder were harvested
after seven days post-germination and fed directly to the pigs as fresh fodder.
Farmer’s Diet ; the farmers diet used during the
experiment were the normal diet used by the farmer to rise his pigs. The farmer’s
diet composes of maize bran, fish meal, sunflower seedcake, rice polish, cotton
seedcake, iodate salt, pig premix, lime, sorghum and bone meal.
The paraemeters measured during the experiment were:
Proximate analysis of the Sorghum Fodder: The standard Association of Official Analytical
Chemists (AOAC). AOAC proximate scheme for forage analysis was followed
to determine the proximate composition of nutirent in the feeds. The
analysis will include the following
parameters:
Dry Matter, Crude fibre, Crude Protein and
Ether Extract
Voluntary Feed Intake (VFI) =
this was determined by arithemetic difference between quantities offered and
amount left over. Amount of left over was determined by weighing the refusals
just before the provision of the next feed. The pig was fed twice a day with
equal feed ration between morning and
evening feed.
VFI = (Amount offered - Amount refused).
Growth rate determination; Individual weight of the pig was measured
at the begining of the experiment. The weekly weight were measured after overnight fasting.
Body weight change = final live weight - initial live weight
The experiment was arranged
in a completely randomized design (CRD). The data on live weight gain and the
mean values of data for feed intake of pigs collected was subjected to one way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) using general linear model (GLM) procedure of SAS
package to test the effect of diet.
Statistical model
Yij = µ + ti + eij where;
Yij – Response of pigs
receiving the diets
µ - general mean effects
ti – Effects of
experimental diet applied on the pigs.
eij – Error term
4.0 RESULTS
4.1 General overview
Nine pigs were drafted
into this experiment and eight survived up to the end of the study while one
pigs died. Generally, feed intake to all pigs was given according to the
specific amount. Feed refusal was low, suggesting that all animals were well
adapted to the fodder given and that the recorded intake represent true
measurement of the feed offered. The findings on the proximate composition of HSF fodder
harvested at seven day post- germination. This section provides the chemical
constitution of the experimental fodder, finding for the respective voluntary
feed intake and weight gain of the pigs during the experimental period.
Figure 4; On farm HSF production at department of Animal,
Aquaculture and Range Sciences by Joachim Joseph (2016)
Table 4: Nutritive value of the
hydroponic fodder harvested at seventh day.
|
COMPOSITIONS
|
CRUDE PROTEIN %
|
CRUDE FIBER (CF)%
|
DRY MATTER DM%
|
ETHER EXTRACT
|
ASH
|
|
Sample 1
|
29.34
|
7.56
|
89.13
|
2.84
|
1.55
|
|
Sample 2
|
30.49
|
7.42
|
89.55
|
2.84
|
1.69
|
|
Average
|
29.92
|
7.49
|
89.34
|
2.84
|
1.62
|
Table 5; CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF HYDROPONIC SORGHUM
FODDER HARVESTED AT SEVEN DAY POST- GERMINATION (PROXIMATE ANALYSIS)
HSF chemical
composition
Table 6; AVERAGE DAILY INTAKE
|
TREATMENTS
|
T1
|
T2
|
T3
|
P-value
|
|
MEASUREMENTS
IN GRAMS
|
491.93±78.38
|
477.82±78.38
|
496.05±96.00
|
0.43
|
Average daily intake.
Table 7; AVERAGE DAILY WEIGHT GAIN
|
TREATMENTS
|
T1
|
T2
|
T3
|
P-value
|
|
MEASUREMENTS
IN GRAMS
|
339.28±1.13
|
351.19±1.13
|
357.14±1.38.
|
0.88
|
Average daily weight gain.
Figure 5;
average daily feed intake
Figure 6;
average daily weight gain.
Finding from the experiment showed that HSF has
higher nutritional content in terms of DM and CP. This might indicate the
potentiality of the fodder as feed for pigs so as to generate the performance
at lower cost. As compared to Conventional Fodder sorghum the HSF has higher
yield. (Johnson .2009.)
The experimental study showed that, pigs receiving
0% hydroponic sorghum fodder harvested at seven day post-germination have
higher feed intake than 100%HSF and 50%HSF respectively. Under scientific
analysis there is no significant difference among the treatment toward the
voluntary feed intake were p-value= 0.43. The pigs receiving 0% hydroponic
fodder has apparently have higher weight
gain than 50% HSF and 100%HSF respectively but scientifically under SAS there was
no significant difference among the treatment on the weight gain p-value= 0.88 .
The intake of 100% hydroponic sorghum fodder may be due to their palatability
but weight gain for pigs fed 50%HSF was apparently higher might be due to their
palatability nutritional balance.
From the present study it
can be concluded that HSF can be used as a pigs diet because it has higher nutrients
(proteins and dry matter contents) which can replace other expensive and
unavailable nutrients sources like fish meal and sunflower in the farmers feed ration.
Also as the experiment portray that T2 had a good result on the average weight
gain than other treatments.
Farmers may be influenced
to use HSF in feeding pigs, since some small farmer fail to engage in keeping pigs
especially those who are in urban area due to unavailability and cost of feeds which
is necessary for ensuring efficiency of pig growth. But due to the faster growing
of HSF it ensure availability of fodders for pigs, however further study is
needed on determining(ANF) anti -nutritional levels in the fodder harvested
when still young and effect of anti-
nutritional factor in digestibility and carcass of the pigs.
Agrotek., 2002. ‘Greenhouse fodder
systems’ Report.
Arano, C.A., 1976 in Peter Ryan,
2003., ‘The Fodder Factory’ Pamphlet
Gatti, Chris & Liz., 2002. The
Daily News, Friday, August 23rd, 2002.
Chavan, J. & Kadam, S. S. (1989).
Nutritional improvement of cereals by sprouting. Critical Reviews in Food
Science and Nutrition. 28 (5), 401-437.
Dung, D. D., Goodwin, I. R., &
Nolan, J. V. (2010). Nutrient Content and in sacco Digestibility of Barley
Grain and Sprouted Barley. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9 (19),
2485-2492.
Fazaeli, H., Golmohammadi, H. A.,
Shoayee, A. A., Montajebi, N., Mosharraf, Sh. (2011). Performance of Feedlot
Calves Fed Hydroponics Fodder Barley. Journal of Agricultural Science and
Technology, 13, 367-375.
Finney, P.L. (1982). Effect of
Germination on Cereal and Legume Nutrient Changes and Food or Feed Value: A
Comprehensive Review. Recent Advances In Phytochemistry, 17, 229-305.
Hinton, D. G. (2007). Supplementary
Feeding of Sheep and Beef Cattle. Collingwood; Australia: Landlinks Press.
J. Dobraszczyk, Bogdan (2001). Cereals
and cereal products: chemistry and technology. Gaithersburg, Md.: Aspen
Publishers. p. 7. ISBN 0-8342-1767-8.
Johnson Grass, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Accessed 2257 UDT, 12 March 2009.
Moon, David (2008). "In the Russian Steppes: the Introduction of Russian
Wheat on the Great Plains of the United States". Journal of Global History
3: 203–225. doi:10.1017/s1740022808002611
Kohler, G.O., Elvehjem, C. A., &
Hart, E.B. (1938). The relation of the grass juice factor to guinea pig
nutrition. The Journal of Nutrition, 15 (5), 445-459.
Marisco, G., Miscera, E., Dimatteo,
S., Minuti, F., Vicenti, A., & Zarrilli, A. (2009). Evaluation of animal
welfare and milk production of goat fed on diet containing hydroponically
germinating seeds. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 8 (2), 625-627.
Miscera, E., Ragni, M., Minuti, F.,
Rubino, G., Marisco, G., & Zarrilli, A. (2009). Improvement of sheeo
welfaee and milk production fed on diet containing hydroponically germinating
seeds. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 8 (2), 634-636
Morgan, J., Hunter, R. R., &
O’Haire, R. (1992). Limiting Factors in hydroponic barley grass production. 8th
International Congress on Soilless Culture. Hunter’s Rest; South Africa.
Myers, J. (1974). Feeding Livestock
from the Hydroponic Garden. M. Sc. Thesis, Arizona State University.
Logsdon, Gene
(2004). All Flesh Is Grass. Ohio University: Swallow Press. Chapter 20. ISBN 0-8040-1069-2
.Pout, Walter., ‘Locksley’, Armatree,
Australia.
R & D Aquaponics, Sydney, New
South Wales, Australia.
Reinders, G., 1996. ‘How to Super
Charge Your Garden’. Mainly Publications, British olumbia.
Resh, H.,1981. ‘Hydroponic Food
Production’. Woodbridge Press Publishing Company, Santa Barbara.
Sneath, R. & McIntosh, F. (2003).
Review of Hydroponic
Williams, N., 1984. ‘Title Unknown’
Dairy Farmer, Vol 31 (4), April, 71 – 81.
APPENDIX 1: ANOVA Table for daily forage intake.
WEEK 1
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE W1 Mean
0.528076 17.75621 85.43274 481.1429
Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value
Pr > F
TRT 2 40835.93954 20417.96977 2.80
0.1530
WEEK 2
R-Square
Coeff Var Root MSE W2 Mean
0.458672
18.88863 105.4593 558.3214
Source
DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr>F
TRT
2 47117.35796 23558.67898 2.12
0.2156
WEEK 3
R-Square
Coeff Var Root MSE W3 Mean
0.284080
19.11038 112.7171 589.8215
Source
DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value
Pr > F
TRT
2 25207.30687 12603.65344 0.99
0.4337
WEEK 4
R-Square
Coeff Var Root MSE W4 Mean
0.030583
20.27181 135.7668 669.7321
Source
DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value
Pr > F
TRT
2 2907.517794 1453.758897 0.08
0.9253
APPENDIX 2: ANOVA Table for daily weight gain.
WEEK 1
R-Square
Coeff Var Root MSE WG1 Mean
0.021313
14.64143 1.546501 10.56250
Source
DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value
Pr > F
TRT
2 0.26041667 0.13020833 0.05
0.9476
WEEK 2
R-Square
Coeff Var Root MSE WG2 Mean
0.093851
11.86427 1.527525 12.87500
Source
DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value
Pr > F
TRT
2 1.20833333 0.60416667 0.26
0.7816
WEEK 3
R-Square
Coeff Var Root MSE WG3 Mean
0.081836
13.16229 1.957890 14.87500
Source
DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value
Pr > F
TRT
2 1.70833333 0.85416667 0.22
0.8078
WEEK 4
R-Square
Coeff Var Root MSE WG4 Mean
0.006331
13.32925 2.357612 17.68750
Source
DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value
Pr > F
TRT
2 0.17708333 0.08854167 0.02
0.9842
