The value of waste-grown microalgae as a protein supplement for starting, growing, and finishing swine

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The value of waste-grown microalgae as a protein supplement for starting, growing, and finishing swine
Uncontrolled:
Microalgae
Physical Description:
vi, 95 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Harrison, Michael Dean, 1957-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Swine -- Feeding and feeds   ( lcsh )
Algae as feed   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1986.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 89-94).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Michael D. Harrison.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000566961
notis - ACZ3409
oclc - 14248044
System ID:
AA00003807:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text











THE VALUE


OF WASTE-GROWN MICROALGAE AS A PROTEIN SUPPLEMENT
FOR
STARTING, GROWING, AND FINISHING SWINE


BY
MICHAEL D. HARRISON




















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1986






























I cannot express my appreciation to my wonderful parents who

have patiently assisted in every conceivable fashion toward the

completion of this project. It saddens me that my father did not

live to see the completion of this project; however I know that he is

aware of it and shares my joy. I dedicate this manuscript to my

mother and father and gratefully acknowledge their years of love,

understanding, and support.


















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There were many people who assisted in the completion of this

project. The professional guidance, assistance, and encouragement of

Dr. G. E. Combs, committee chairman, are greatly appreciated. The

contributions of Dr. E. P. Lincoln, Dr. R. L. West, Dr. P. J.

VanBlokland, and Dr. W. R. Walker to the research effort and final

preparation of this manuscript are gratefully acknowledged.

Appreciation is extended to Mr. Dane Bernis for his invaluable advice

and assistance at the swine unit. Special appreciation is extended

to Donnie Ray Campbell for providing the author with an inexpensive

bait boy and constant inspiration to fish. The financial support of

the National Science Foundation through their research grant is

gratefully acknowledged. The assistance and encouragement of the

author's wife has been especially helpful during the final

preparation of this manuscript.













TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................i

ABSTRACT ........................................................... v

I INTRODUCTION ...................................................1

II LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................. 3

Production of Algae.......................................3
Harvest............ ........................................4
Drying ................................................... 4
Composition of Algae ....................................5
Ash Content..............................................6
Toxic Contaminants..................................... 7
Fiber Content..............................................8
Other Nutrients.. ..................................... 10
Feeding Value ......................................... ....11
Rats... .... ........ .............................. ... 11
Poultry..ds........ ............. ............ ............ 11
Humans.............. .....................................12
Swine................................................... 12

III PERFORMANCE OF GROWING-FINISHING SWINE FED DIETS CONTAINING
ALGAE PRODUCED ON SWINE LAGOON EFFLUENT.......................15

Introduction................................................15
Materials and Methods.....................................16
Experiment 1............................................19
Experiments 2 and 3........ .......... ...................19
Results and Discussion .....................................20
Experiment 1............................................ 20
Experiment 2......... ............... ... .......... ......21
Experiment 3 ......................................... 21

IV FEEDING VALUE AND DIGESTIBILITY OF WASTE GROWN MICROALGAE
FOR STARTING, GROWING AND FINISHING SWINE....................24

Introduction.............................. ..................24
Materials and Methods......................................25
Experiment 4 ...................... ............ ......... 26
Experiment 5................................ ..... .....28
Results and Discussion......................................32
Experiment 4............................................32
Experiment 5.................................... ........35

V CONCLUSIONS........... ........................................39

APPENDIX ............... ........................... ...............43

LITERATURE CITED......... ..........................................89

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH................................................95
_________ .i v












Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate
School of the University of Florida in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE VALUE OF WASTE-GROWN MICROALGAE
AS A PROTEIN SUPPLEMENT
FOR STARTING, GROWING, AND FINISHING SWINE


By

Michael D. Harrison

May, 1986

Chairman: Dr. G. E. Combs
Major Department: Animal Science

Five experiments were conducted to evaluate the feeding value of waste

grown microalgae for starting and growing-finishing (GF) swine. The

predominant algae genera in these experiments were Synechocvstis (Experiment

1) and Chlorella (Experiments 2, 3, 4, and 5). Algae were harvested via

flocculation with aluminum sulfate (Experiments 1, 2 and 3) or Dow C-31, a

nitrogenous biopolymer (Experiments 4 and 5).

Two 17.5% crude protein (CP) corn-soybean meal (CS) diets containing

either 0 or 16% algae were fed to 36 pigs (20 to 34kg) in Experiment 1. For

Experiments 2 and 3, 72 GF pigs (25 to 60 kg) received isolysine CS diets

with algae providing 0, 15, 30, and 45% of the dietary lysine.

Results from Experiments 1, 2, and 3 indicate there was a linear

reduction (P<.05) in average daily gain (ADG) and feed to gain ratio (FE)

due to algae supplementation. There was no difference (P>.05) in average

daily feed intake (ADF) among the treatment groups.

Digestion coefficients were determined on semipurified,

cornstarch-cerelose diets containing 0, 10, 20 and 30% algae (Experiment 4).










Addition of algae caused a linear reduction (P<.01) in metabolizable

energy, nitrogen retention, and dry matter and organic matter

digestibility. Gross energy and crude protein digestibility decreased

quadratically (P<.01) when algae were added to the diet. Neutral

detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber digestibility coefficients

increased linearly (P<.01) with increasing levels of algae.

Algae provided 0, 4 and 8% of the methionine-cystine requirement for

54 pigs from 10 to 100 kg (Experiment 5). Addition of algae resulted in a

linear reduction (P<.05) in ADG from 9 to 57 kg. Feed intake was not

affected (P>.05) by level of algae during this period. Dietary algae

increased feed to gain ratio (P<.05) of starting pigs (9 to 34 kg) but had

no effect (P>.05) on growing pigs (34 to 57 kg). There was no difference

(P>.05) in ADG, FI, or FE from 57 to 100 kg. No treatment differences

(P>.05) in hot carcass weight, gastro-intestinal fill, carcass length,

average backfat thickness, or marbling score were observed. As dietary

algae increased there was a linear reduction (P<.05) in loin eye area.

Warner Bratzler shear values, fat odor and sensory panel determinations

were not affected (P>.05) by algae level. Hepatic levels of aluminum,

chromium, lead, mercury or nickel were not affected by level of algae

(P>.05). There was a quadratic effect (P<.05) of dietary algae on hepatic

cadmium concentration.

These data indicated that the algal products used in these experiments

were not a satisfactory source of protein for swine diets.

















CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION



The major trend of swine facilities in the United States is toward

complete confinement of animals into intensive production systems which

has resulted in the concentration of animal waste within a small area.

Microalgae are a potential source of dietary protein and could function

as a method of recycling livestock wastes back through the production

system from which they were derived. An estimated 30 million kg of

manure nitrogen is generated daily in the United States. Approximately

45% of this nitrogen is readily collectible and therefore available for

recycling in some form or another (Calvert, 1974). One method of

treating this waste is the production of biomass in the form of

microscopic algae which can recover at least one third of the lost

nitrogen (Lincoln and Hill, 1978). Conversion of this lost nitrogen

into a protein feedstuff has potential for economic benefit to the

swine industry.

Microalgae are single-celled photosynthetic organisms which are

capable of rapidly reproducing on a medium of carbon, nitrogen,

minerals, and water in the presence of sunlight (Khilberg, 1972).

Culture and harvest of algae from animal wastes has been shown to be

feasible for both small and large scale production systems.










Small scale feeding trials which have been conducted using rats

(McDowell and Leveille, 1963), poultry (Shelef et al.,1978), and swine

(Yap et al., 1982) have indicated that microalgae, when used as a

partial protein supplement, yield comparable results when compared with

counterparts fed various conventional sources of protein. Conflict

exists in the literature as to optimal feeding level and actual feeding

value of waste grown algae.

The purpose of this research was to assess the potential use of dry

algae produced from a mixed mass culture on swine lagoon effluent as a

potential source of dietary protein for starting, growing, and

finishing swine.

Specific objectives included

1. Chemical quantification of the nutrient value of a mixed

mass culture algal product.

2. Determination of feeding value of this product for

starting, growing, and finishing swine based upon rate and

efficiency of gain.

3. Determination of digestibility coefficients for algal

diets fed to growing swine with respect to protein,

energy, dry matter, and organic matter.

4. Assessment of possible detrimental effects upon carcass

quality and acceptability after feeding algae from weaning

to final slaughter weight.
















CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Production of Algae

Growth of algae has been demonstrated to occur on many different

nutrient sources including animal waste water, domestic sewage, and

various byproduct effluents from animal and vegetable processing

procedures (Asplund and Pfander, 1973; Fulhage, 1973; Oswald, 1969;

Oswald and Gouleke, 1968). Current research involving the culture and

harvest of microalgae on swine lagoon effluent stems from more strict

environmental quality regulations and the ability of microalgae to thrive

in heavily polluted water (De Franca et al., 1978; Lee, 1979; Pipes and

Gotaas, 1960). Yield estimates for microalgae produced from animal waste

water range between 27,000 and 30,000 kg per hectare per year (Lincoln

and Hill, 1978; Oswald, 1969). Species selection and controlled

supplementation of selected growth media have been reported to result in

yields up to 50,000 kg of dry matter per year of an air dry product which

ranged in crude protein from 36 to 55% (Bourges et al., 1971). By

comparison, soybeans, the primary source of supplemental plant protein in

swine diets, yield an average of 2000 kg per hectare per year (Cook,

1962; Lee, 1979; Oswald, 1969). Consequently the potential protein

production from single celled algal biomass vastly outyields other

conventional crops per unit of land area (Lee, 1979).










Harvest

Method of harvest can alter final composition of the algal product

(Golueke and Oswald, 1965). Harvesting of algae from aqueous medium

involves concentration of the culture from a density of approximately

500 mg/L to a final product which is 85% dry matter (Lincoln, 1977).

The three principal methods of harvest include centrifugation,

filtration, and flocculation (Golueke and Oswald, 1965; Oswald and

Golueke, 1968). Neither centrifugation nor filtration has been

reported to cause any appreciable change in composition of wastegrown

algae. However flocculation, the addidition of chemicals to facilitate

concentration and separation of cells, has been found to increase the

ash content of the algal product harvested (Grau and Klein, 1957;

Yannai et al., 1979).

Drying

Method, temperature, and time of drying have been reported to

influence digestibility and protein quality of algal products for rats

(Erchul and Isenberg, 1968; Subbulakshmi et al., 1976; Becker et al.,

1976). These researchers reported that method, temperature, and time

of drying caused no quantitative differences in algal protein content,

non-protein nitrogen, moisture, fat, or ash composition. Subbulakshmi

et al. (1976) found that sun drying algae of the genus Spirulina sp.

resulted in a reduction of starch and a corresponding increase in total

sugars. Erchul and Isenberg (1968) stated that sun drying had no

effect upon protein quality of wastegrown algae; however, application

of moist heat subsequent to drying improved protein quality.










Drum drying of algae (10-12 seconds at 120 C) yielded the highest

biological value (80.8 vs 87.0 for casein) and the highest

digestibility coefficient for rats when compared with sun-dried or

sun-dried/cooked algae. Subbulakshmi et al. (1976) further indicated

that drum-dried algae yielded the highest in vitro protein

digestibility when compared with fresh and sun-dried algae.

Composition of Algae

Composition of algae varies widely between different genera and

species as well as within species. Variation between genera and

species is similar to differences observed between conventional plant

genera and species (Church, 1978). Variation within species can be

attributed to many factors, including nutrient source, method of

harvest, and treatment after harvest (Bourges et al., 1971; Boyd, 1973;

Clement, 1974; Clement et al., 1967; Fisher, 1953; Grau and Klein,

1957; McDowell and Leveille, 1963).

Algae are typically considered a source of dietary protein when

evaluated as a feed ingredient (Asplund and Pfander, 1973; Boyd, 1973;

Enebo, 1970; Fulhage, 1972; Furst, 1978; Omstedt and von der Decken,

1974). Protein content of algae has been reported to range from a low

of 27% to a high of 74% crude protein (Erchul and Isenberg, 1968;

Bourges et al., 1971). Reports vary as to quality of the protein

present in algae. Sunghee et al. (1967) concluded that algal protein

is an excellent source of both lysine and threonine, while Clement et

al. (1967) and Cheeke et al. (1977) supported only the assertion that

algae are an excellent source of lysine. They, along with other

researchers, have further reported that algae lack sufficient











quantities of sulfur-containing amino acids (methionine and cystine) to

be considered an adequate source of these essential amino acids for

livestock feeds (Cheeke et al., 1977; Clement, 1974; Cook et al., 1963;

Durand-Chastel and Clement, 1972; Fisher, 1953; McDowell and Leveille,

1963).

Several researchers have indicated that from 4 to 40% of the

nitrogen present in single-cell protein sources such as algae is

comprised of non-protein nitrogen (Clement et al., 1967; Enebo, 1970;

Kharatyan, 1978; McDowell and Leveille, 1963; Subbulakshmi et al.,

1976). This non-protein nitrogen is present in the form of nucleic

acids (RNA), chlorophyll, amides and amino sugars, some of which are

cell wall constituents (Dam et al., 1965; Enebo, 1970; Khilberg,

1972). Dam et al. (1965) indicated that chlorophyll alone may account

for 3-5% of the total nitrogen present in algae and that amide nitrogen

accounts for 8-9% of algal nitrogen.

Ash Content

Ash content of algae has been reported to range from a low of 4 to

as high as 43% (Bourges et al., 1971; Cook, 1962; Erchul and Isenberg,

1968; Grau and Klein, 1957; Lubitz, 1963; McDowell and Leveille, 1963;

Subbulakshmi et al., 1976; Yannai et al., 1979). Erchul and Isenberg

(1968) cultured algae of different species on waste water, harvested

them via flocculation with Dow C-31 polymer, and dried the product on

sand beds. They recorded ash values for six different algal cultures

which ranged from 17 to 43%. A lower ash content of 6% (total ash) was

observed in a culture of Chlorella algae grown on artificial media in a

laboratory and harvested via centrifugation. The apparent variation in

ash content has been attributed to method of harvest.











When flocculation was utilized as the means of harvest it was cited as

the primary reason for increased ash content of the final product

(Cook, 1962; Grau and Klein, 1957; Yannai et al., 1979). Algae with

ash values of less than 10% have been either centrifuged or filtered

from solution (Bourges et al., 1971; Lubitz, 1963; McDowell and

Leveille, 1963; Powell et al., 1961).

Ash content of algae is unaffected by method of drying

(Subbulakshmi et al., 1976). Ash composition of nonflocculated algae

primarily consists of phosphorus 1 to 10%, iron .7%, and both calcium

and magnesium .01 to 1% with levels of all other minerals falling below

.01% (Lubitz, 1963; Subbulakshmi et al., 1976). Aluminum was the

primary component of ash present in algal products which have been

flocculated with (alum) A12(S04)3 18 H20 (Grau and Klein, 1957;

Yannal et al., 1979).

Toxic Contaminants

The presence of toxic contaminants in algae was evaluated by Yannai

et al. (1979). These researchers reported levels of arsenic, mercury,

cadmium, and lead that were higher than expected in the algal product.

However, these elements failed to appear in tissues of poultry fed

diets containing these algae. The authors surmised that high levels of

phosphate present in algae contributed to insolubility of heavy metals

and therefore reduced their presence in tissues of these birds. Other

studies on algae have failed to report similar levels of these toxic

metals as did Yannai et al. (1979). Algae fed in the studies by Yannai

et al. (1979) were harvested via flocculation with alum. Unusually high

levels of lead in samples of waste-grown algae flocculated with alum










have been attributed to contamination by alum (E. P. Lincoln, personal

communication). Yannai et al. (1979) also stated that levels of other

contaminants including pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls were

well within legal limits.

Reports of toxicity of certain blue-green algae (Anabaena

spiroides) stem from an apparent toxin produced by algae rather than a

foreign contaminant. Beasley et al. (1983) reported the death of 65

mature sows from an apparent poisoning due to ingestion of water

containing blue-green algae, predominantly Anabaena sDiroides. This

incident was attributed to the specific genus Anabaena of the phylum

Cyanophyta (blue-green algae) and has not been reported in other genera

of algae fed to swine. The blue-green family Oscillatoriaceae which

contains the genera Spirulina, Arthrospira, and Oscillataria is

predominantly non-toxic. This family consists of filamentous algae and

is easily harvested by filtration (E.P. Lincoln, personal

communication). Fulhage (1972) reported that algae of the Chlorophyta

family (green algae) have no known toxic species.

Fiber Content

Several researchers have reported that algal cell walls are poorly

degraded by different species of experimental animals. The reduced

digestibility of various components in algae was most often attributed

to inadequate degradation of algal cell walls (Cheeke et al., 1977;

Cook, 1962; Enebo, 1970; Khilberg, 1972; McDowell and Leveille, 1963;

Omstedt and Von der Decken, 1974; Powell et al., 1961). Dam et al.

(1965) indicated that poor digestibility of algal protein by human

subjects stemmed from inadequate degradation of algal cell walls as

exemplified by the presence of intact algal cell membranes in feces of

these subjects.










Furst (1978) indicated that differences in cell walls existed

between algae of the genera Chlorella and Scenedesmus and the genus

Spirulina. Furst stated that Spirulina algae were more digestible as

this genus did not have the same type of tough cell wall as that of

Chlorella and Scenedesmus. Fulhage (1972) furthered comparisons of

cell walls in algae by analysing two phyla, Chlorophyta (green algae)

and Cyanophyta (blue-green algae). Fibrous cell walls of Chlorophyta

are comprised of polysaccharide gels (similar to cellulose) on a

protein matrix. This cell wall was surmised to be an advantage in

retarding predation. Cyanophyta (blue-green algae) do not have this

same fibrous cell wall; however, some of these algae incorporate use of

toxins as a defense against predation.

Several researchers have reported a crude fiber content for algae

ranging from 2.5 to 3.5 % (Bourges et al., 1971; Erchul and Isenberg,

1968; Lubitz, 1963;). Chung et al. (1978) analyzed one genus of algae

representing each of two phyla (Chlorophyta and Cyanophyta) for fiber

content using methods of Van Soest (1975). They found that algae of

the Chlorophyta represented by the genus Chlorella contained .25 and

4.5%, respectively, of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent

fiber (ADF). These values were markedly different from those of

Arthrospira (Cyanophyta) which contained 14.4 NDF and 0% ADF. Chung et

al. (1978) stated that this was indicative of inherent differences in

types of polysaccharides present in these two genera of algae. Cell

wall materials of Arthrospira contained hemicellulose and mucilage

because these compounds were recovered in neutral detergent (ND) but

dissolved in acid detergent (AD) as opposed to cell wall

materials of Chlorella which were comprised of pectic or acid











polysaccharides since these compounds dissolved in ND but were

recovered in AD.

Drying, and more importantly method of drying, have been cited as

important means by which algal cell walls have been ruptured

(Subbulakshmi et al., 1976; Becker et al., 1976). These researchers

agreed that drum drying of algae where temperature reached 120 C for 10

to 12 sec caused a marked improvement of in vitro digestibility values

for the algal product. They stated that this improvement was due to

high temperature rupturing of the tough algal cell walls.

Other Nutrients

Grau and Klein (1957) indicated that microalgae contain sufficient

amounts of xanthrophylls and other carotenoid pigments, which are

additives used in poultry diets to obtain the desirable yellow

coloration of the skin and yolk. Clement (1974) reported similar

findings and stated that algae of the genus Spirulina are used

commercially in France at the level of 2 to 3% to provide yellow

coloring for chicken skin and egg yolks. Lipstein and Hurwitz (1980)

assessed algae in semipurified poultry diets and reported that when

algae were the sole source of pigment there was a correlation between

dietary algae level and intensity of pigmentation of skin and shanks.

They further stated that when algae were present at a level of 15%,

bird pigmentation might become excessive if fed algae for longer than

two weeks.










Feeding Value

Rats

Feeding trials which have been conducted with rats indicated that

algae of the genus Chlorella can be used to provide 25% of the dietary

protein without lowering rate of gain (McDowell and Leveille, 1963).

Diets containing algal protein supplying 25% of total dietary protein

(75% casein) yielded a slightly higher protein efficiency ratio (PER)

than diets containing casein alone when fed to laboratory rats (Cook,

1962; McDowell and Leveille, 1963). A number of studies with

laboratory rats conducted by Fink and Herold (1956; 1957) indicated

that algae of the genus Scendesmus sp. had a PER value which equalled

that of other plant proteins.

Effects of processing upon algae utilization by laboratory rats

have been investigated by several researchers (Becker et al., 1976;

Chung et al., 1978; Cook, 1962; McDowell and Leveille, 1963; Omstedt

and von der Decken, 1974). These reports indicate that boiling for

approximately 30 minutes, autoclaving, heat treatment via drum drying,

as well as addition of 1% diastase or cellulase resulted in improved

digestibility and PER of algae-containing diets. Each of these

processes was applied to cause degradation of the algal cell wall.

Poultry

Shelef et al. (1978) reported that algal protein derived from green

algae Scendesmus sp. can replace up to 50% of soybean meal protein in

broiler rations with no depression (P>.05) in growth rate. Grau and

Klein (1957) determined that tolerance level for alum flocculated algae

of the genus Chlorella was 20% in the diet of White Leghorn chicks.











They reported that when half or more of total dietary protein was

derived from algae, growth rate of birds was suboptimal. Clement

(1974) reported that greater than 5% dietary algae resulted in retarded

growth of chickens. Algae used in these studies were of the genus

Spirulina. Lipstein and Hurwitz (1980) evaluated growth of broilers

fed levels of algae similar to those fed by Grau and Klein (1957) and

found a slight depression in growth.

Humans

Research on nutritional value of algae with humans as subjects has

been limited. Human subjects consuming various algae containing

products complained of objectionable smell and taste of these products

and of abdominal cramps, flatulence, and nausea (Dam et al., 1965;

Powell et al., 1961). These undesirable digestive symptoms became most

noticeable when algal consumption was greater than 200 grams per day

and passed within 48 hours of cessation of algal consumption. Both

groups reported that digestibility of algae was poor with a mean

apparent dry matter digestibility of approximately 66%.

Swine

Hintz et. al. (1966) reported that addition of algae (Chlorella and

Scenedesmus) to pelleted growing swine diets at levels of 6 and 10%

resulted in a reduction (P<.05) in dry matter, organic matter, and

crude protein digestibility when compared with pigs fed a

barley-fishmeal diet. Calculated crude protein digestibility was

reported to be 54% for pigs fed the algae diets. There were no

differences (P>.05) in ADG (.73 .75 vs .77) for pigs fed either the 6

or 10% algae diets when compared with the control pigs.










There were no differences (P>.05) in FE (3.85, 3.90 vs. 3.85) for pigs

fed these same diets. Based on ADG and FE algae supplementation at the

levels of 6 and 10% was judged to be adequate for pigs fed a diet

containing barley and meat and bone meal. Hintz and Heitman (1967)

reported a higher crude protein digestion coefficient for algae (70%)

than that (54%) reported by Hintz et al. (1966). In addition, these

researchers found no differences (P>.05) in either ADG (0.69 vs. 0.73)

or FE (3.48 vs. 3.36) for growing-finishing pigs fed 14% crude protein

barley diets containing 4 or 6% algae replacing fishmeal as the

supplemental source of dietary protein. Replacing part of the algae

with meat and bone meal did not improve (P>.05) animal performance.

Lee (1979) evaluated the feeding value of wastegrown algae for

growing-finishing swine. The algae fed were primarily Micractinium sp.

and Scenedesmus sp. containing 59% crude protein on a dry matter

basis. Lee indicated that pigs fed diets containing 8% algae produced

gains equal (P>.05) to that of a corn-soybean meal fed control group.

When dietary algae were increased to 15% there was a significant

reduction (P<.05) in ADG (.63 vs .55 kg/d) for control and 15% algae

fed pigs respectively. No differences in carcass appearance, color of

fatty tissue, taste, and flavor or texture of lean were observed. Nor

were pathogens isolated from organ samples.

Yap et al. 1982 compared the feeding value of two blue-green algae

species with that of Chlorella sp. utilizing 4 and 8 day old pigs

reared under artificial conditions. These researchers stated that when

algae replaced one half of the dietary soybean meal and comprised

one-third of the dietary protein there was no difference (P>.05) in ADG





14




for pigs consuming these diets when compared to pigs fed a corn-soybean

meal control diet. The authors stated that no difference in ADG

(P>.05) was observed for algae of different genera. There were no

signs of diarrhea, loss of appetite, toxicity, gross or

histopathological lesions of the gastrointestinal tract, kidney or

liver for any dietary treatments. These authors suggested that at

least one-half of the soybean meal in diets of early weaned pigs can be

replaced by algae without adverse effects.














CHAPTER III

PERFORMANCE OF GROWING-FINISHING SWINE FED
DIETS CONTAINING ALGAE PRODUCED ON SWINE LAGOON EFFLUENT

Introduction

Microalgae are a potential source of dietary protein and could

function as a method of recycling livestock wastes back through the

production system from which they were derived. Swine lagoon effluent

can provide large quantities of the nutrients necessary for algal

production (Lincoln et al., 1977) including recovery of at least 30% of

the manure nitrogen (Lincoln and Hill, 1978). Crude protein (CP) of

effluent grown algae has been reported to range from 27 to 74% (Erchul

and Isenberg, 1968). The economic production of algae on municipal

wastewater and the utilization of the final product as a feedstuff in

poultry diets (Shelef et al., 1978) have advanced the concept of

recycling animal waste, through algae production, for livestock feeds.



Algae have been studied as a potential source of dietary protein in

livestock feeds for several years (Asplund and Pfander, 1973; Enebo,

1970), however, algal protein has been reported to vary in quality and

availability, and has yielded variable results in animal growth

studies. The addition of algae (Chlorella and Scenedesmus) to the

diets of growing swine at levels of 6 and 10% resulted in a reduction

(P<.05) in dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), and CP digestibility,

with CP digestibility averaging only 54% for pigs fed algae diets

(Hintz et al., 1966).










However, no difference (P>.05) was reported (Hintz et al., 1966) in ADG or

FE for pigs fed either the 6 or 10% algae diets compared to control pigs fed

a barley-fishmeal diet. Similarly, Hintz and Heitman (1967) reported no

difference (P>.05) in either ADG or FE for growing-finishing (GF) pigs fed

14% CP barley diets containing either 4 or 6% algae substituted for

fishmeal; however CP digestibility was reported to be as high as 70% for

pigs fed the algae diets.

The objective of these studies was to determine the maximum feeding

level of two genera of algae (Chlorella or Synechocystis) for optimal

performance of GF swine.

Materials and Methods

Algae produced on swine waste in a mixed, mass culture (Lincoln et al.,

1977), were ground through a .48cm screen and analyzed for chemical

composition (Table I). Dry matter, ether extract, crude fiber, ash, and

nitrogen free extract were determined by AOAC (1980) methods. Samples for

nitrogen analysis were digested using a modification of the aluminum block

digestion procedure of Gallaher et al. (1975). Ammonia in the digestate was

determined by semiautomated colorimetry (Hambleton, 1977). In vitro organic

matter digestion (IVOMD) was performed by a modification of the two-stage

technique (Moore and Mott, 1974). Samples were hydrolyzed for amino acid

analysis by a modified procedure of Davies and Thomas (1973). Amino acid

content was determined with high pressure liquid chromatographyl by the

method of Jones et al. (1981). Samples were ashed and digested for mineral

analysis as described by Fick et al. (1979). Concentration of individual

mineral elements was determined using an atomic absorption spectro-

photometer following the manufacturer's instructions.


1Perkin-Elmer Series 4 Liquid Chromatograph Norwalk, CT.
Perkin-Elmer Model 5000 Atomic absorption spectrophotometer Norwalk, CT.










Table I. ANALYSES OF ALGAE FED IN SWINE GROWTH EXPERIMENTS

Trial 1 Trial 2 & 3
Component,% Synechocystis sp. Chlorella sp.

Moisture 17.76 14.73
Ether extract 1.31 1.21
Crude protein 22.00 24.90
Crude fiber 1.60 1.64
Nitrogen free extract 36.33 22.60
Ash 21.00 34.92
Aluminum 7.93 10.25
Calcium .29 1.49
Phosphorus 5.56 5.01
Lysine 1.14 1.40
Methionine --- .81
Threonine -- 1.05

IVOMDa 41.19 45.58

aIn vitro organic matter digestibility



The predominant genera in the two mixed cultures were the coccold

blue-green alga Synechocystis sp. (Experiment 1) and the green alga

Chlorella sp. (Experiments 2 and 3). These genera will be used to

describe each culture. Experimental diets are shown in Table II.

Three experiments were conducted with growing and finishing swine.

Pigs were housed in a partially open sided concrete block finishing

facility with 6 m2 pens and solid concrete flooring which was washed

daily. Thermostatically controlled misting devices (23 C) were used to

aid in temperature control in each experiment. Feed and water were

available on an ad libitum basis. Pigs were weighed individually and

pen feed consumption was determined weekly. Average daily gain, ADF,

FE, and pig mortality (PM) were evaluated to determine treatment

differences.















LnO 0 L 0
0 DNr-

r- -1


%3 0 rt 0

r-N r-




m r- O r
(M D
NmwH (


00C N r-l 0 -4





ONC Ml-





000 4-4-
CO N A C 1l-ll
* *


4r.




X D


















W
X
x
















wC





















4- S
r- a
E














X l


T- t

t5^


00
aN
4t C%
00 -


0000
roo4 C-


OOOOLAOOLA


0 -4-I


00 00 pM ron- oC


r- 04
001U I-4N




N N

I CN1
% O i

Q 000


SLL. C LLU
I1 -4
N Ul Z- X
S 0LL. r- -

QD S 0- U
Z E E (D U) C C.w

C 0 0) E U 0

- >.0) U S f 4) +
0 O 'r- 0 a-f C
UOW<


0)
L >


-0 s
cDC





C 1) l 00
CL 00
+- C % U -

g 0
L LA OC C)
.)0 L 0 Q

X4J *( c
Q L + C 4J

0 0 0 U

U )



QU) 0 M
0 04


C C CO -
0 0 u
CO .CO u-

'oC C a0 E

0 0 0 0
XC CE N
wo x to
Q ll kO -
S- 0)
.0 > 0
S0 U Ca N
Q C *- -

() C-4 0 0
) 0 d -0 a)
c L U
1 MCO

C0 LS
U 0 0. 0
) OE L
C L 0 0 0)




C3 C CC C
C0 CO = *. C
U)< 00 0 U
L 0)'a 0 r-- + .(>n
-CE 0 -- XU
SE. > 10C

o X 'a^ 0 t- U n
UC E 2.

+0 0 0)0
) 3 0 0
02< 0 L U
CO C N CC 0






(D 0 O r lO + <

U)r-. Z 0 0
C 0 00 0U


00 0OLOOLA





CD 000 0 ooLn
r=NM I r- CM N-4 4-






LLAOOOLAOOLA




LOOOOOLAOOl



O'O.'UOOLAOO)l


*cO*
cO H


Ln

-4



0


















43











C


0 )

(D










Experiment 1.

Thirty-six crossbred pigs (20-34kg) were allotted on the basis of

weight, sex, and litter origin to two isonitrogenous dietary treatments

(3 replications/treatment, 6 pigs/replication). Pigs were fed the

experimental diets (Table II) for 28 days. Treatment 1 consisted of a

control 17.5% CP corn-soybean meal grower diet (CS). Treatment 2 was

similar to the control diet except the alga (Synechocvstis sp.) was

substituted for a portion of the corn and soybean meal to provide a

total of 16% algae. Data were subjected to analysis of variance for a

randomized complete block design (Steel and Torrie, 1960). The model

for ADG, ADF, and FE included the effects of replication, treatment,

and sex and the appropriate interactions. Initial weight was used as a

covariate in the model.

Experiment 2 and 3.

Alga predominantly of the genus Chlorella was fed to 72 crossbred

growing pigs (25 to 35 kg) and 72 crossbred finishing pigs (50 to 60

kg) for Experiments 2 and 3, respectively. Pigs were allotted to four

dietary treatments (3 replications/treatment, 6 pigs/replication) based

on weight, sex, and litter. Diets were formulated to meet the lysine

requirement (NRC, 1979) for growing pigs (Experiment 2; Table II) and

finishing pigs (Experiment 3; Table II). Algae were substituted for

corn and soybean meal to provide 15, 30, and 45% of the total dietary

lysine. This was accomplished by additions of approximately 5, 10, and

15% algae to the diet. Data were subjected to regression analysis for

a randomized complete block design (Steel and Torrie, 1960). The model

for ADG, ADF, and FE included the effects of replication, treatment, and










sex and the appropriate interactions. Initial weight was used as a

covariate in the model.

Results and Discussion

Experiment 1.

Average daily gain was higher (P<.01) for pigs fed the CS diet than

for pigs fed the 16% algae diet (Table III). Feed intake was similar

for all pigs. Feed efficiency was improved (P<.05) for pigs fed the

control diet compared to those consuming the algae diet.


Table III. PIG PERFORMANCE (Experiment 1)a

Criteria Control 16% Algae SE

Initial wt., kg 24.56 26.18
Final wt., kg 47.73 38.10
Daily gain, kg 0.83 0.43 .05
Daily feed intake, kg 1.91 1.91 .03
Feed efficiency feed/gain 2.47 4.51 .19

aEighteen pigs per treatment fed 28 days.
Standard error of the mean.
SMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ (P<.01).
e,f Means in the same row with different superscripts differ (P<.05).


Beasley et al. (1983) reported the death of 65 sows after they

consumed water containing a bloom of the blue-green alga Anabaena

spiroides. Similarly, Lincoln and Carmichael, (1980) found that

Synechocvstis, another genus of blue-green algae, was toxic when fed to

chicks at 5% of the diet. In contrast, no deaths or overt signs of

toxicosis resulted from the inclusion of blue-green algae of the genus

Synechocystis at levels up to 16% in the diets for this trial.

Since ADF was not altered by the inclusion of algae in the diet, the

reduced gain observed for pigs fed the algae diet stemmed from either a










reduction in nutrient digestibility or the presence of a growth inhibiting

factor.

Experiment 2.

There was a linear reduction (P<.01) in ADG with increasing levels of

dietary algae (Chlorella sp.) (Table IV). When algae comprised 15% of the

diet, there was a 38% reduction in ADG (.74 vs .49 kg/d for the control

and 15% algae diet, respectively). Although not statistical significant

(P<.20) there was a numerical reduction in ADF with increasing levels of

dietary algae. Pigs receiving the 15% dietary algae treatment consumed

.25 kg less feed per day than pigs fed the corn-soybean meal control

diets. A linear reduction (P<.05) in FE was observed with increasing

levels of dietary algae.



Table IV. PIG PERFORMANCE (Experiment 2)a

Criteria Control 5% 10% 15% SE

Initial wt., kg 32.13 32.17 32.11 30.45
Final wt., kg 52.90 51.71 48.16 44.25
Daily gain, kg .74 .70 .57 .49 .016
Daily feed intake, kg 2.25 2.24 2.10 2.00 .096
Feed efficiency 3.03 3.21 3.70 4.64 .093

aEighteen pigs per treatment fed 28 days.
Standard error of the mean.
CLinear effect of algae level (P<.01).
Linear effect of algae level (P<.05).


Experiment 3.

There was a linear reduction (P<.01) in ADG with increasing

levels of dietary algae (Table V) resulting in a 27% reduction in ADG

(.77 vs .56 kg/d) when algae comprised 15% of the diet. There was no

difference (P>.05) in ADF for pigs fed the control diet or increasing

levels of algae.











Table V. PIG PERFORMANCE (Experiment 3)'

Criteria Control 5% 10% 15% SEb

Initial wt., kg 64.54 64.49 64.49 64.49
Final wt., kg 86.03 84.32 82.88 80.80
Daily gain, kg 0.77 0.71 0.66 0.56 .028
Daily feed intake, kg 2.65 2.53 2.60 2.57 .078
Feed efficiency 3.46 3.58 3.97 4.23 .126

aEighteen pigs per treatment fed 28 days.
Standard error of the mean.
Linear effect of algae (P<.01).
dLinear effect of algae (P<.05).


A linear reduction (P<.05) in FE was observed with increasing levels

of dietary algae. The results of Experiments 2 and 3 compare

favorably with the results of Lee (1979) in which diets containing 8%

waste-grown algae (59% CP) comprised primarily of Micractinium and

Scenedesmus were fed to GF swine. Lee (1979) reported gains for pigs

fed algae diets equal (P>.05) to those of pigs fed a corn-soybean

meal control diet. However, when dietary algae were increased to

15%, there was a reduction (P<.05) in ADG.

In contrast to the results of Lee (1979) and those reported in

this research, Yap et al. (1982) reported no difference (P>.05) in

ADG for early weaned (4 to 8 d) pigs when algae (Spirulina maxima or

Chlorella sp.) replaced one half of the dietary soybean meal in a

corn-soybean meal based diet containing 30% skim milk. It is

important to note that the algae used in the studies reported by Yap

et al. (1982) was harvested via filtration and contained less than 8%

ash.

Utilization of the algal products in our studies was similar for

both Synechocystis sp. and Chlorella sp. The poor in vitro

digestibility of both genera of algae used in these experiments










(Table I) along with the presence of large quantities of aluminum in

these algal products may be contributing factors resulting in the

reduced growth rate of growing and finishing pigs. Aluminum was the

major component of the flocculating agent (alum) used to harvest

these algal products. Valdivia (1982) reported a reduction (P<.05)

in both feed intake and gain when sheep were fed diets containing

greater than 2000 ppm aluminum. The three algae diets (5, 10, and

15%) used in Experiments 2 and 3 contained 5,000, 10,000, and 15,000

ppm aluminum, respectively.

Modified cultural practices and harvesting techniques could

substantially improve the feeding value of algae. Considerable

variation exists in composition and digestibility of different genera

of algae (Yap et al., 1982). Species selection mediated through

control of culture and harvesting algae without the addition of

flocculating chemicals may improve the quality of the final algal

product. Addition of flocculating chemicals is an economical method

of harvesting algae from swine wastewater (Lincoln et al., 1977);

however, the feeding value of these products has been reported to be

inferior in previous studies (Grau and Klein, 1957). Perhaps

balancing the cost of production and harvest with the final quality

of algae product will optimize the value of waste-grown algae as a

protein source for GF swine.
















CHAPTER IV

FEEDING VALUE AND DIGESTIBILITY OF WASTE GROWN
MICROALGAE FOR STARTING, GROWING, AND FINISHING SWINE

Introduction

Algae have been studied as a potential source of protein in livestock

feeds (Asplund and Pfander, 1973; Enebo, 1970). Algal protein has been

reported to vary in quality and availability and has yielded variable

results in animal growth studies (Bourges et al., 1971; Boyd, 1973; Erchul

and Isenberg, 1968; Fuhlage, 1972; Furst, 1978;). Hintz et al. (1966)

reported a reduction (P<.05) in dry matter (DMD), organic matter (OMD),

and crude protein digestibility (CPD) when 10% algae (Chlorella and

Scenedesmus) were added to diets fed growing swine Hintz and Heitman

(1967) reported that CPD of algae fed in a 14% CP barley-fishmeal diet was

70%. Since alga was not the sole source of dietary CP the digestion

coefficient for algae was calculated based upon the difference in CP

digestion between a barley-fishmeal diet with and without algae.

Lee (1979) determined that pigs fed diets containing 8% algae produced

gains equal (P>.05) to that of pigs fed a corn-soybean meal diet.

However, when dietary algae level was increased to 15% there was a

significant reduction (P<.05) in ADG for pigs fed the algae diets. Lee

also reported no differences in carcass appearance, color of fatty tissue,

taste, and flavor or texture of lean.

Limited research has been published examining the digestibility of

algae as the sole source of dietary protein in swine diets or the effect










of feeding algae from weaning to slaughter on pig growth and final carcass

composition. Therefore the objectives of these studies were to determine

the optimal feeding level and the digestibility of Chlorella algae in

semipurified diets with algae comprising the sole source of dietary

protein. Also, practical diets containing algae were fed throughout the

entire growth period to determine the long term effects upon growth and

carcass composition of swine.

Materials and Methods

Algae were produced on swine waste in a mixed, mass culture and

harvested via flocculation with a nitrogenous biopolymer (Dow C-31) and

sun-dried. The final concentration of flocculant in the algal product was

38% (as fed). The algal product was then ground through a .48cm screen

and composition determined (Table VI). Dry matter (DM), ether extract

(EE) crude fiber (CF), ash, and CP were analysed (AOAC 1980). Neutral

detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were determined

according to the procedures described by Van Soest and Wine (1967).

Samples were ashed and digested for mineral analysis as described by Fick

et al. (1979). Mineral concentration was determined using an atomic

absorption spectrophotometer following the manufacturer's

instructions Samples were hydrolyzed for amino acid analysis by a

modified procedure of Davies and Thomas (1973). Amino acid content was

determined by high pressure liquid chromatography2 following the method

of Jones et al. (1981). In vitro organic matter digestion was performed

by a modification of the two stage technique (Moore and Mott, 1974).


Perkin-Elmer Model 5000 Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer, Norwalk, CT.
Perkin-Elmer Series 4 Liquid Chromatograph, Norwalk, CT.











Table VI. ANALYSIS OF ALGAE FED IN SWINE DIGESTION TRIAL

Component, % Chlorella sp.

Moisture 12.80
Crude fiber 7.69
Neutral detergent fiber 36.60
Acid detergent fiber 7.74
Ether extract 0.13
Ash 16.30
Calcium 2.68
Phosphorus 3.33
Aluminum 200.09
Cadmiuma .09
Chromiuma .65
Leada 5.10
Mercurya .04
Nickel 2.88
Crude protein 56.20
Lysine 1.69
Methionine .58
Threonine 2.15
Tryptophan .39

parts per million


Experiment 4.

Eight crossbred littermate barrows averaging 31 kg were allowed to a

replicated 4 x 4 Latin Square design experiment. Pigs were housed in an

environmentally controlled concrete block building in individual

metabolism crates. Both feed and water were supplied ad libitum. An

initial 12d adjustment period for the purpose of acclimating the pigs to

the crates and diets was followed by four alternating 5d collection and 5d

dietary adjustment periods.

Dietary treatments consisted of four semipurified, cornstarch-cerelose

based diets (Table VII) which were formulated to meet the nutrient

requirements for 10 to 20 kg pigs (NRC, 1979). Since methionine and

cystine were the most limiting amino acids in algae relative to the

requirements for growing swine they were selected as the basis for

substitution of algae into the semipurified diets.










The basal diet contained an isolated soy protein as the primary source of

dietary amino acids (Appendix Tables 22 & 23). Algae were substituted

into this diet replacing the isolated soy protein to supply 10, 20, and

30% of the pigs' methionine-cystine requirement (diets 2, 3, and 4,

respectively). Chromic oxide was added to each diet at the level of .5%

to permit calculation of digestibility.


Table VII. DIET COMPOSITION EXPERIMENT 4 (METABOLISM TRIAL)

Ingredient.% Diet 1 Diet2 Diet 3 Diet 4
Algae (Chlorella) ---- 10.35 20.69 31.04
Isolated soybean protein 21.19 14.40 7.56 --
Cerelose 34.37 32.96 31.56 30.23
Cornstarch 34.37 32.96 31.56 30.23
Corn oil (IFN 4-07-882) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Corn cobs (IFN 1-28-234) 2.48 1.69 0.90 0.11
Dicalcium phosphate (6-28-335) 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97
Iodized salt (IFN 6-04-152) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Potassium chloride (IFN 6-03-756) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Mineral premix 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63
Vitamin premix 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
Lysine d -- ---- 0.02 0.33
Methionined 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.27
Threonine ---- --- --- 0.04
d
Tryptopha ---- ---- ---- 0.01
Histidine -- -- ---- 0.08
Isoleucine --- --- --- 0.12


Composition.%
Dry matter" 90.35 89.84 88.65 87.47
Organic matter 95.32 93.36 92.31 91.10
Gross energy Mcal/kge 4.23 4.23 4.21 4.18
Crude protein 19.40 19.64 19.10 19.27
Neutral detergent fi1ere 10.37 11.30 13.41 14.18
Acid detergent fiber 0.60 1.83 2.61 3.55
Lysine 1.19 0.98 0.80 0.80
Methionin .51 0.51 0.51 0.52
Threonine' .70 0.70 0.69 0.71
Tryptophan .28 0.23 0.18 0.13
a ---........--


b
c
d
A


Algae produced from a mixed mass culture
swine waste water.
Composition (see Appendix Table 22).
Composition (see Appendix Table 23).
United States Biochemical Corporation


Analyzed
Calculated


in an outdoor pond containing










Feces, urine, and waste feed were collected twice daily and stored at 2

C during each period. At the end of each collection period, samples were

mixed and representative subsamples (.25kg) were obtained from both waste

feed and feces and frozen at -20 C for laboratory analysis. Samples were

analyzed for DM, gross energy (GE), ash, and CP (AOAC, 1980).

Neutral detergent fiber and ADF were determined employing procedures

described by Van Soest and Wine (1967). Urine samples were maintained

below pH 5 by addition of concentrated hydrochloric acid to prevent

bacterial contamination and ammonia volatilization. The daily collections

of urine were filtered, subsampled and frozen after each collection

period. Gross energy was determined according to the procedure described

by manufacturer (Parr, 1960). Nitrogen content was also determined for

each sample (AOAC, 1980). Data collected were subjected to an analysis of

variance procedure for a 4 x 4 Latin Square design (Steel and Torrie,

1960). The analysis utilized a model which included the effects of

treatment, replication, and period and the appropriate interactions. If

treatment was significant, orthoginal contrasts for linear, quadratic, and

cubic trends were conducted.

Experiment 5.

Corn-soybean meal diets containing algae predominantly of the genus

Chlorella were fed to 54 crossbred swine from weaning to slaughter (10-100

kg). Pigs were allotted to three dietary treatments (3 replications

/treatment, 6 pigs/replication) based on weight, sex, and litter. Diets

were formulated to meet the lysine requirement (NRC, 1979) for pigs during

the respective starting (10 to 20 kg), growing (20 to 50 kg), and finishing

(50 to 100 kg) periods (Table VIII). Alga was substituted for corn and

soybean meal to provide 0, 4, and 8% of the pigs' methionine-cystine

requirement (diet 1, 2, and 3, respectively).















-4nmwNOOMOLnI
1 .
kO %0 qr 0 r-4
00D~r


NLnt-'0
N nr- o0

k' 00
co


c ko

co r-4


CNN
m oLn r-4
.; zLAO
00.


'0'0c
to N o%


0)0
m'0


@NO
00 N 0





N O 0
'0LA'0
%o %
t 3 c


OO LnoL i





001n0u1





r.n-40 I
-4c 0 rI-




r-CONr-4 I
-4
OOLAooLA







00 LAO 0 Ln






r- 00 04 r-4 -1
MaONAHH -

















o o L oo L
1: *
OOLAooLA





00u0000
rcON--hN



-4



00u0000
-4



OOlAlA

-4


N N
e-4 L
I NI
%0
O SO
I I

10 7
rAZ LIZ
3 LL 0 'L LLU

10 1- 4-3 -d o
(D In C36
0 OLL.

0 0 G L v 0


QU 4J 0
0 C U) N 0
C.0 to 'U 0 '- U MU w
I.>% 0Y) (A U E '0 'U 4-14-
0 0- >t 0 C
L) j


4

C ~C
o -4 '-




O C


.0 L OC a +

C14 LA 0 0
I '00
O r- r-

LrO 04 'U
,4-"-4 4. J

U'N O) L
U)M C L .
-OO Q
'ON CO C
E J. O "
o 00 -


(V- O = ,-
+.C CC O


OC 0C 0


O' OC )
IT E N

O N




>r > C
2 O C3 N
c 4) C 4
O 'U0 -P
S ( ) 0 --0





S0 O~ -



4, -
S (a a -


CL-C CC C


a0 d *-' v
0 > r-4 ft > XO
254.0 EL

S- i- 'o ) (D

OCOL4 O. C
C ( C O- N
*'0 0 0


0 'U 0 C L C

- 0 0. .C .C w-



U) 0 0


4:
C
(D



C ,
H


N c

4m










Animals were slaughtered as each pen of pigs reached an average weight of

100 kg. Hot carcass weight and gastro-intestinal fill weight were

determined at time of slaughter. Carcass length, backfat thickness,

marbling, and loin eye area were recorded after carcasses were chilled for

48 h at 0 C. Carcass length was determined by measuring the distance

between the anterior tip of the aitch bone and the anterior edge of the

first rib. Backfat thickness at the first and last rib and the last lumbar

vertebrae was also determined. Degree of marbling was subjectively scored

according to the scale presented in Table IX. The right side of each

carcass was ribbed between the tenth and eleventh rib, the rib eye area was

traced on acetate paper and area was determined using a compensating

planimeter. In addition, a subcutaneous fat sample (150cm x 75cm x 50cm)

was removed from the area covering the third to the tenth rib for fat odor

evaluation. A sample (8 cm section) of the longissimus muscle was removed

from the area immediately posterior to the the tenth rib. Three 2.54 cm

loin chops were obtained from this sample for sensory panel evaluation and

Warner Bratzler shear determination. A liver sample (75 x 75 x 50 cm) was

removed from the left lobe for mercury, lead, aluminum, cobalt, cadmium,

nickel, and chromium analysis.



Table IX. MARBLING EVALUATION SCORING SCALE.

Marbling Low Average High

Abundant 25 26 27
Moderately Abundant 22 23 24
Slightly Abundant 19 20 21
Moderate 16 17 18
Modest 13 14 15
Small 10 11 12
Slight 7 8 9
Traces 4 5 6
Practically Devoid 1 2 3
Devoid 0 0 0










Longissimus muscle samples were wrapped in polyethylene freezer paper

and fat samples were vacuum sealed in Cryovactm barrier bags (B-610) and

stored at -13 C. Loin chops for sensory panel evaluation were broiled on

a preheated Farberware "Open Hearth" broiler until an internal temperature

of 50 C was obtained, then turned and broiled until they reached an

internal temperature of 70 C. Temperature was monitored by thermocouples

placed in the geometric center of the loin chops. Sensory panel members

evaluated tenderness, juciness, flavor, off flavor, and connective tissue

according to the scale shown in Table X.

Fat odor samples were cooked under the same conditions as sensory

panel samples. Odor was evaluated using the inverse of the off flavor

scale (Table X).

Prior to Warner Bratzler shear measurement, longissimus muscle samples

were allowed to cool to room temperature (22 to 25 C). After cooling,

eight 1.27 cm cores were taken parallel to the muscle fiber orientation

from each loin chop. Warner-Bratzler shear force was measured in kg per

1.27 cm core.

Animal performance, carcass characteristics, sensory panel

determinations, and hepatic mineral analysis data were subjected to

regression analysis for a randomized complete block design (Steel and

Torrie, 1960). The analysis utilized a model which included the effects

of treatment, replication, sex, and the appropriate interactions. Initial

weight was analysed as a covariate in the models for animal performance

and carcass characteristics. If treatment was significant, orthoginal

contrasts for linear and quadratic trends were conducted.










TABLE X. SENSORY PANEL EVALUATION SCORING SCALE

Score Tenderness Juciness Flavor

8 Extremely tender Extremely juicy Extremely intense
7 Very tender Very juicy Very intense
6 Moderately tender Moderately juicy Moderately intense
5 Slightly tender Slightly juicy Slightly intense
4 Slightly tough Slightly dry Slightly bland
3 Moderately tough Moderately dry Moderately bland
2 Very tough Very dry Very bland
1 Extremely tough Extremely dry Extremely bland

Score Connective tissue Off flavor Fat odor

8 None --
7 Practically none --- ---
6 Traces
5 Slight -- ---
4 Moderate None Extreme
3 Slightly abundant Slight Moderate
2 Moderately abundant Moderate Slight
1 Abundant Extreme None


Results & Discussion


Experiment 4.

A summary of the results for Experiment 4 is presented in Table XI.

The regression equations for digestion coefficients are presented in

Appendix Table 32.

Addition of algae caused a linear reduction (P<.01) in metabolizable

energy (ME), nitrogen retention (NR), and dry matter digestibility (DMD)

and organic matter digestibility (OMD). Gross energy digestibility (GED),

crude protein digestibility (CPD), and digestible energy (DE), decreased

quadratically (P<.01). Neutral detergent fiber digestibility and Acid

detergent fiber digestibility coefficients increased (P<.01) as alga was

added to the diet. This may be attributed to differences in the source of

fiber present in these diets.










As the level of algae increased in the diet the amount of corn cobs was

reduced so that the dietary crude fiber level was held constant at 2.5%.

The NDF and ADF of algae was apparently more digestible than that of corn

cobs, the primary source of fiber in diet 1.



Table XI. DIGESTION COEFFICIENTS FOR PIGS IN EXPERIMENT 4

Criteria Diet 1 Diet 2 Diet 3 Diet 4 SEG

Dry matter 92.05 84.47 76.66 71.86 .757
Organic matter 95.04 89.08 83.30 79.91 .585
Neutral detergent fiber 24.48 28.63 48.28 57.40 3.019
Acid detergent fiber 4.16 27.53 38.28 47.65 3.785
Gross energy 94.02 85.92 78.25 74.13 .684
Digestible energy b 3.61 3.26 2.92 2.74 .025
Metabolizable energy 3.09 2.79 2.56 2.48 .165
Crude protein 93.84 69.97 50.30 33.58 1.646
Nitrogen retention % 73.25 50.39 30.25 16.45 .033

a Standard error of the mean.
bLinear effect of algae (P<.01).
c Quadratic effect of algae (P<.01)

Algae were the sole source of protein for diet 4 in this study;

therefore the reduction (P<.01) in OPD can be attributed to the effect of

algae. Since algae has been considered as a potential source of dietary

protein, both CPD and NR are of interest in determining the value of this

product as a protein supplement. A comparison of diet 1 (isolated soy

protein) and diet 4 (algae) demonstrates the dramatic reduction in both

CPD (93.8, 33.6%) and NR (73.25, 16.45%) of the addition of algae to swine

diets. The decline in both of these parameters was greater than for any

other dietary constituent. The reduction in both CPD (quadratic effect,

P<.01) and NR (linear effect, P<.01), with the addition of algae to the

diet characterizes the poor utilization of this algal product (Table XI).










Hintz et al. (1966) fed barrows (40-46 kg) barley based diets

containing 10% algae (Chlorella). They reported that addition of algae

reduced (P<.05) DMD, OMD, and CPD. The CP of algae was determined to be

only 54% digestible when fed to swine.

The digestion coefficient for CP obtained in this study is lower than

coefficients reported in the literature, which may be attributed to the

difference in the composition of the algae. It is important to note that

the algae fed by both Hintz et al. (1966) and Hintz and Heitman (1967)

were harvested by centrifugation and contained no flocculating chemicals.

The harvesting method employed in our trials dictated that a flocculant be

added to the algae prior to harvest. The biopolymer used to harvest the

algal product contained 9.58% nitrogen (air dry). This material comprised

38% of the final algae product and therefore contributed 3.64% nitrogen

(22.8 %CP) to the final algal product. This nitrogen was in the form of

non-protein nitrogen (NPN) Amino acid analysis of this algae product

confirmed that only 46% of the nitrogen (25.9% CP) was present as amino

acid nitrogen. Subtracting the CP supplied by NPN in the flocculant would

yield a value of 33.4% CP which agrees with the analysed CP content of

similar algal samples harvested without the addition of flocculating

chemicals (E. P. Lincoln, personal communication).

The poor digestibility of protein in algae may be attributed to the

presence of NPN in this algae product. Combs and Wallace (1970) reported

a reduction (P<.05) in DMD of corn-soybean meal diets (15 or 17% CP) which

contained 3% of the dietary protein as NPN when fed to finishing pigs (80

kg). In addition, both ADG and FE were decreased (P<.05) when 5% of the

crude protein was present in the form of NPN (Combs and Wallace);

however, CPD was similar.










Wehrbein et al. (1970) fed 20 percent of the crude protein in a

corn-soybean meal diet in the form of NPN to GF pigs and reported a

reduction (P<.05) in both ADG and NR. The NPN levels in our study were

similar to levels fed by Wehrbein et al. (1970), which supports the

observed reductions in CPD and NR attributed to the NPN present in our

algal product. Based upon CPD and NR, this algal product containing the

NPN biopolymer Dow C-31 is an inadequate source of dietary protein for

growing pigs.

Experiment 5

A summary of the performance results for Experiment 5 is presented in

Table XII. Addition of algae caused a linear reduction (P<.05) in ADG

during both the starting and growing periods (9 57kg). Feed intake was

not affected (P>.05) by level of algae during the starting or growing

period. Increasing dietary algae increased feed to gain ratio (P<.05)

during the starting period but had no effect (P>.05) in the growing

period. There was no difference (P>.05) in ADG, FI, or FE during the

finishing period (57- 100kg). These results support the data reported in

Experiment 4 with respect to poor utilization of the algal product by

swine.

Combs and Wallace (1973) reported a reduction (P<.05) in ADG and feed

intake when 4% of the crude protein in the form of NPN was present in the

diet of starting pigs (5kg). Further research indicated that levels of 2

and 3% of the crude protein in the form of NPN caused a reduction in both

ADG and feed intake (Combs and Wallace, 1974). Yap et al. (1982) reported

no difference in ADG or feed intake of early weaned pigs fed 13% algae

diets when compared with control pigs fed a corn soybean meal 30% skim

milk based diet.










Table XII. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE DATA FOR
FINISHING SWINE IN EXPERIMENT 5.

Criteria Control

Starter period
Average initial weight, kg 9.26
Average final weight, kg 35.36
Average daily gain, kg 0.64
Feed intake, kg 1.29
Feed/gain 2.02
Grower period
Average initial weight, kg 35.36
Average final weight, g 57.61
Average daily gain, kg 0.80
Feed intake, kg 2.34
Feed/gain 2.95
Finisher period
Average initial weight, kg 57.61
Average final weight, kg 102.06
Average daily gain, kg 0.77
Feed intake, kg 2.77
Feed/gain 3.61


STARTING, GROWING, AND


4% Algae 8% Algae SE


9.30
34.80
0.62
1.30
2.08

34.80
56.75
0.78
2.34
2.98

56.75
101.25
0.79
2.89
3.65


9.31
31.70
0.55
1.22
2.23

31.70
51.18
0.70
2.21
3.17

51.18
96.89
0.71
2.73
3.84


0.017
0.042
0.027



0.023
0.044
0.081



0.158
0.051
0.077


a Standard error of the mean.
bLinear effect of algae (P<.05).


Algae used in the studies by Yap et al. (1982) were Spirulina, harvested

by filtration, and therefore did not contain any flocculating chemicals.

Their product contained less than 8% ash (as fed), whereas our study was

conducted with a product which contained more than 16% ash (Table VI) and

22.75% of the crude protein in the form of NPN contributed by the

flocculant.

There were no differences due to treatment for hot carcass weight,

gastro-intestinal fill, carcass length, backfat thickness, or marbling

score (Table XIII). There was a linear reduction (P<.05) in loin eye area

(LEA) as a result of adding algae to the diet. Loin eye area was adjusted

for the final weight of the individual animal by adding or subtracting

.1849 times the difference between actual weight and 100 kg (USDA, 1981).










TABLE XIII. CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS FOR
SLAUGHTER EXPERIMENT 5.


SWINE FED ALGAE FROM WEANING TO


Criteria Control 4% Algae 8% Algae SEa

Hot carcass weight, kg 75.68 73.74 72.27 2.019
Intestinal tract fill, kg 2.43 2.67 2.81 0.205
Carcass length, cm 81.09 81.54 80.10 0.760
Average backfat thickness, cm 3.30 3.22 3.16 0.089
Marbling score 2 13.56 15.06 14.28 1.234
Loin eye area, cm 31.99 30.15 29.37 0.614

bStandard error of the mean.
Modest low=13, Modest high=15.
CLinear effect of algae (P<.05).


TABLE XIV. WARNER BRATZLER SHEAR AND SENSORY PANEL EVALUATION OF
LONGISSIMUS AND FAT TISSUE

Criteria Control 4% Algae 8% Algae SEa

Warner Bratzler shear kg/cm2 4.59 4.45 4.83 0.349
Tenderness 5.73 5.94 5.61 0.178
Juciness 5.41 5.42 5.43 0.175
Flavor 6.03 6.01 5.82 0.037
Off flavor 3.95 3.91 3.90 0.037
Connective tissue 5.26 5.38 4.95 0.188
Fat odor 1.73 1.96 1.77 0.091
Standard error of the mean.

Warner Bratzler shear values and sensory panel determinations

(tenderness, juciness, flavor, off flavor, and connective tissue) were not

affected by dietary algae level (Table XIV). A separate fat odor panel

evaluated fat samples to determine if the strong fishlike odor present in

the algal product carried over into the fat tissue of the swine consuming

diets containing this algae. No differences were determined for fat odor

in this experiment. These results are in agreement with those of Lee

(1979) who reported that no differences were observed in carcass

characteristics of swine fed corn-soybean meal diets containing 0 or 8%

algae.










There were no differences in hepatic levels of aluminum, chromium,

lead, mercury or nickel (Table XV).



TABLE XV. ANALYSIS OF SELECTED MINERALS FROM SWINE LIVERS IN EXPERIMENT 5.


Mineral (ppm) Control 4% Algae 8% Algae SEa


Aluminum 10.68 10.80 10.79 0.086
Cadmium 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.014
Chromium 0.26 0.40 0.24 0.092
Lead 0.18 0.10 0.06 0.236
Mercury 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.016
Nickel 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.066
Standard error of the mean.
Quadratic effect of algae (P<.05)


Yannai et al. (1979) attributed the apparent lack of absorption for heavy

metal contaminants of algae to the presence of high levels of phosphates

which inhibited heavy metal absorption in growing broilers. These

researchers reported no difference in tissue mineral levels of aluminum,

arsenic, copper, cadmium, lead, and mercury for broilers fed diets

containing 15% algae. The algae studied by Yannai et al. (1979) contained

80 times the aluminum, 9 times the cadmium, and 4 times as much mercury as

the algae in our studies. Lead values were similar in the two studies.

There was a quadratic effect (P<.05) of dietary algae on hepatic cadmium

concentration in our research. The cadmium levels in the livers of pigs

fed algae diets were slightly higher than the level present in the algal

product (.18 vs .10 ppm) respectively. Liver cadmium levels for pigs fed

corn-soybean meal diets containing no algae were less than half those of

pigs receiving either the 4 or 8% algae containing diets.

















CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

Algae were produced on swine waste in a mixed, mass culture and

harvested via flocculation with either aluminum sulfate (Experiments

1, 2, and 3) or Dow C-31, a nitrogenous biopolymer, (Experiments 4

and 5) and sun-dried. The algal products were then ground through a

.48cm screen and mixed into the diets of starting, and

growing-finishing swine. Algal composition (as fed) for Experiment 1

(Synechocvstis) was 22.0% crude protein (CP), 21.0% ash, 10.25%

aluminum (AL) and for Experiments 2 and 3 (Chlorella), 24.9% CP,

34.9% ash, and 7.93% AL. Algae fed during Experiments4 and 5

contained on an as fed basis 56.2% CP, 16.3% ash, 2.7% calcium, and

3.3% phosphorus. The flocculant contributed 3.64% of the algal

nitrogen (22.8% CP).

Two isonitrogenous 17.5% CP corn-soybean meal (CS) diets (0 or

16% algae) were fed to 36 pigs (25 to 48 kg) in Experiment 1.

Seventy-two growing pigs (30 to 52 kg) and 72 finishing pigs (64 to

88 kg) were fed isolysine corn-soybean meal based diets formulated to

meet their lysine requirement (NRC, 1979) in Experiments 2 and 3,

respectively, with algae providing 0, 15, 30, and 45% of the dietary

lysine.

There was a linear reduction (P<.05) in average daily gain (ADG)

and feed to gain ratio (FE) with increasing levels of dietary algae

in Experiments 1, 2 and 3. There was no difference in ADF for any











treatment group in Experiments 1, 2 or 3. No deaths or overt signs of

toxicosis resulted from the inclusion of 16% Synechocystis (a blue-green

alga) in Experiment 1.

Aluminum was the major component of the flocculating agent (alum) used

to harvest these algal products (Experiments 1, 2, and 3) and was present

at levels exceeding 1% of the diet in Experiment 1. The three algae diets

(5, 10 and 15%) used in Experiments 2 & 3 contained 5,000, 10,000 and

15,000 ppm aluminum, respectively. Levels of dietary aluminum greater

than 2000 ppm have been cited as the cause for a reduction in animal

performance similar to that observed in Experiments 1, 2, and 3.

Digestion coefficients were determined with 8 littermate barrows (31

kg) fed semipurified, cornstarch-cerelose diets containing 0, 10, 20 and

30% algae (Experiment 4). Diets were formulated to meet the nutrient

requirements for 10 to 20 kg. pigs (NRC, 1979). Addition of algae caused

a linear reduction (P<.01) in metabolizable energy, nitrogen retention,

dry matter and organic matter digestibility. Gross energy and crude

protein digestibility decreased quadratically (P<.01) when algae were

added to the diet. Neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber

digestibility coefficients increased (P<.01) with increasing levels of

algae. The NDF and ADF content of algae were more digestible than that of

corn cobs, the sole source of fiber in diet 1 (0% algae).

Algae were the sole source of protein in diet 4 (30% algae);

therefore, the reduction (P<.01) in CPD can be attributed to the presence

of algae. A comparison of the isolated soy protein diet (0% algae) and

the 30% algae diet demonstrated a reduction in both CPD (93.8, 33.6%) and

NR (73.25, 16.45%). The decline in these parameters was greater than for

any other dietary constituent. The digestion coefficient for crude











protein obtained in this study is lower than coefficients determined in

previous studies, which may be attributed to a difference in algae

composition.A substantial quantity of non-protein nitrogen (3.64%)

contributed by the flocculant Dow C-31 was present in the final algal

product. The reduction in CPD was attributed at least partially to the

presence of this NPN.

Algae provided 0, 4 and 8% of the methionine-cystine requirement in CS

diets fed to 54 pigs (10 to 100 kg, Experiment 5). Addition of algae

resulted in a linear reduction (P<.05) in ADG during the starting (9 to

34) and growing period (34 to 57 kg). Feed intake was not affected

(P>.05) by including algae in diets fed during the starting and growing

period. Increasing dietary algae increased feed to gain ratio (P<.05)

during the starting period but had no effect (P>.05) during the growing

period. There was no difference in ADG, FI, or FE during the finishing

period (57 to 100kg) when algae were added in the diet. There were no

treatment differences in hot carcass weight, gastro-intestinal fill,

carcass length, backfat thickness, or marbling score. A linear reduction

(P<.05) in loin eye area was observed as dietary algae increased. Warner

Bratzler shear values, fat odor and sensory panel determinations were not

affected by dietary algae level. There were no differences in hepatic

levels of aluminum, chromium, lead, mercury or nickel, but a quadratic

effect (P<.05) of dietary algae on hepatic cadmium concentration was

observed.

These data indicated that the algal products used in these experiments

were not a satisfactory source of protein for swine diets. The effect of

flocculating chemicals containing aluminum or NPN on final product quality

was not assessed in these experiments. Previous research indicated that






42




dietary aluminum and NPN markedly reduced animal performance when fed at

levels comparable to those in this research. Improved harvesting

techniques are essential to future use of algae as an animal feed

ingredient. Species selection based upon harvesting properties and

cultural control of these algal species are proposed solutions to

improving the quality of waste grown microalgae.
































APPENDIX










TABLE XVI. MEANS EXPERIMENT 1 (260A)


Control
N Mean SD SEM Var CV
Avg. Initial Wt.,kg 18 24.56 8.88 2.09 78.863 36.16
Avg. Final Wt.,kg 18 47.73 10.28 2.42 105.770 21.55
Avg. Daily Gain ,kg 18 .83 .267 .06 .071 32.29
Avg. Daily Feed, kg 3 1.91 .060 .04 .004 3.17
Avg. Feed/Gain 3 2.47 .060 .03 .003 2.37



16% Algae

Avg. Initial Wt.,kg 18 26.18 6.94 1.64 48.148 26.50
Avg. Final Wt.,kg 18 38.10 8.87 2.09 78.622 23.27
Avg. Daily Gain ,kg 18 .43 .10 .02 .010 22.97
Avg. Daily Feed, kg 3 1.91 .01 .01 .0002 .69
Ava. Feed /Gain 3 4.51 .45 .26 .203 9.99




TABLE XVII. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS EXPERIMENT 1 (260A).

Dependent Variable: Average Daily Gain

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square CV
.60 .005 .073 .61 12.13
AOV Table

Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 18 .006 19.56 .0001
Trt 2 .948 161.20 .0001
Rep 2 .008 .70 .5050
Sex 1 .028 4.84 .0381
Trt*Rep 4 .035 3.01 .0692
Trt*Sex 2 .0001 .02 .8838
Rep*Sex 2 .025 2.11 .1435
Trt*Rep*Sex 4 .004 .32 .7321
Int Wt Cov 1 .228 38.78 .0001
Error 35 .485










TABLE XVII. continued

Dependent Variable: Feed Intake, Kg


MSE Root MSE
.003 .052


R-Square Coeficient of Variation
.305 2.70


Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 3 .0023 .29 .8313
Trt 1 .00003 .01 .9241
Rep 2 .0023 .43 .6975
Error 2 .0053


Dependent Variable: Feed/Gain

Mean MSE Root MSE R-square Coefficient of Variation
3.49 .106 .326 .97 9.34

Source DF SS F-value PR>F
Model 3 6.393 20.04 .0479
Trt 1 6.222 58.52 .0167
Rep 2 .171 .80 .5542
Error 2 .213


Mean
1.91










TABLE XVIII. MEANS EXPERIMENT 2 (260B)


Control
N Mean SD SEM Var CV
Initial Wt.,kg 18 32.13 1.82 .43 3.322 5.67
Avg. Final Wt.,kg 18 52.90 4.24 .99 17.989 8.02
Avg. Daily Gain ,kg 18 .74 .103 .02 .011 13.88
Avg. Daily Feed, kg 3 2.25 .070 .04 .005 3.10
Avg. Feed/Gain 3 3.03 .045 .03 .002 1.49



15% Algae

Avg. Initial Wt.,kg 18 32.17 1.851 .44 3.426 5.76
Avg. Final Wt.,kg 18 51.71 4.278 1.01 18.299 8.27
Avg. Daily Gain ,kg 18 .70 .112 .03 .013 16.06
Avg. Daily Feed, kg 3 2.24 .129 .08 .017 5.78
Avg. Feed /Gain 3 3.21 .101 .06 .010 3.13



30% Algae

Avg. Initial Wt.,kg 18 32.11 1.97 .46 3.880 6.14
Avg. Final Wt.,kg 18 48.16 3.79 .89 14.360 7.87
Avg. Daily Gain ,kg 18 .57 .08 .02 .007 14.66
Avg. Daily Feed, kg 3 2.10 .17 .10 .030 8.21
Avg. Feed /Gain 3 3.70 .27 .16 .075 7.41



45% Algae

Avg. Initial Wt.,kg 18 30.45 7.03 1.66 49.404 23.08
Avg. Final Wt.,kg 18 44.25 3.89 .91 14.965 8.74
Avg. Daily Gain ,kg 18 .49 .25 .06 .064 51.19
Avg. Daily Feed, kg 3 2.00 .12 .07 .014 5.90
Ava. Feed /Gain 3 4.64 .26 .15 .068 5.62











TABLE XIX. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR EXPERIMENT 2 (260B) GROWTH PARAMETERS

Dependent Variable: Average Daily Gain, Kg


Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of
.066 .88 10.84


F-Value


Model
Trt
Sex
Rep
Trt*Sex
Trt*Rep
Sex*Rep
Trt*Sex*Rep
Init Wt Covar
Error
CONTRAST
Linear
Quadratic
Cubic


1.455
.996
.049
.027
.014
.085
.038
.022
.184
.205

.980
.035
.001


13.91
76.13
11.86
3.04
1.03
3.26
4.39
.83
42.09


121.01
4.35
0.15


Variation


PR>F


.0001
.0001
.0158
.1707
.3867
.0093
.0178
.5553
.0001


.0001
.0623
.6978


Dependent Variable: Feed Intake, Kg

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coeficient of Variation
2.15 .028 .141 .54 6.58

Source DF SS F-Value PR>F

Model 5 .138 1.38 .3495
Trt 3 .127 2.12 .1994
Rep 2 .011 .27 .7693
Error 6 .120
CONTRAST
Linear 1 .116 5.83 .0523
Quadratic 1 .007 0.33 .5862
Cubic 1 .004 0.19 .7656


Mean
.61

Source


MSE
.004











TABLE XIX. continued.

Dependent Variable: Feed/Gain


R-square Coefficient
.97 4.43

F-value


of Variation


PR>F


Model 5 4.858 37.31 .0002
Trt 3 4.704 60.21 .0001
Rep 2 .154 2.96 .1273
Error 6 .156
CONTRAST
Linear 1 4.266 163.82 .0001
Quadratic 1 .433 16.63 .0665
Cubic 1 .004 0.16 .7030


Mean
3.65

Source


MSE
.026


Root MSE
.161











TABLE XX. MEANS EXPERIMENT 3 (260C)

Control


N Mean SD SEM Var CV
Initial Wt.,kg 18 64.54 3.47 .82 12.026 5.37
Avg. Final Wt.,kg 18 86.03 6.62 1.56 43.862 7.70
Avg. Daily Gain ,kg 18 .77 .16 .04 .026 21.09
Avg. Daily Feed, kg 3 2.65 .08 .05 .007 3.17
Avg. Feed/Gain 3 3.46 .18 .10 .031 5.11



15% Algae

Initial Wt.,kg 18 64.49 3.37 .80 11.383 5.23
Avg. Final Wt.,kg 18 84.32 4.88 1.15 23.840 5.79
Avg. Daily Gain ,kg 18 .71 .12 .03 .015 17.24
Avg. Daily Feed, kg 3 2.53 .12 .07 .013 4.54
Avg. Feed /Gain 3 3.58 .17 .10 .029 4.77



30% Algae

Initial Wt.,kg 18 64.49 3.57 .84 12.74 5.54
Avg. Final Wt.,kg 18 82.88 5.91 1.39 34.97 7.14
Avg. Daily Gain ,kg 18 .66 .12 .03 .14 18.26
Avg. Daily Feed, kg 3 2.60 .19 .11 .04 7.25
Avg. Feed /Gain 3 3.97 .04 .02 .001 .89



45% Algae

Initial Wt.,kg 16 64.49 3.75 .88 14.021 5.81
Avg. Final Wt.,kg 18 80.80 4.71 1.18 22.163 5.83
Avg. Daily Gain ,kg 18 .56 .08 .02 .007 14.64
Avg. Daily Feed, kg 3 2.57 .02 .01 .0003 .74
Avg. Feed /Gain 3 4.23 .04 .24 .171 9.78











TABLE XXI. STATISTICAL ANALYSES FOR EXPERIMENT 3 (260C) GROWTH PARAMETERS

Dependent Variable: Average Daily Gain,Kg


Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of
.119 .47 17.63


F-Value


2.96
9.61
2.16
0.26
0.66
1.59
.08
1.02
6.51


23.78
0.18
0.44


AOV Table
SS


Model
Trt
Sex
Rep
Trt*Sex
Trt*Rep
Sex*Rep
Trt*Sex*Rep
Init Wt Covar
Error
CONTRAST
Linear
Quadratic
Cubic


.675
.425
.032
.008
.029
.140
.002
.090
.085
.755

.392
.003
.007


Variation



PR>F


.0015
.0001
.1488
.7736
.5837
.1727
.9264
.4265
.0142


.0001
.6761
.5108


Dependent Variable: Feed Intake, Kg


R-Square
.18


Coeficient
5.23


F-Value


of Variation


PR>F


Model 5 .025 0.27 .9144
Trt 3 .022 0.40 .7556
Rep 2 .002 0.07 .9366
Error 6 .110
CONTRAST
Linear 1 .005 0.25 .6339
Quadratic 1 .005 0.27 .6204
Cubic 1 .013 0.69 .4383


Mean
.68


Source


MSE
.014


Mean
2.59

Source


MSE
.018


Root MSE
.136











TABLE XXI. continued.

Dependent Variable: Feed/Gain


Mean
3.81

Source


MSE
.048


Root MSE
.218


R-square Coefficient of Variation
.82 5.72


F-value


PR>F


Model 5 1.315 5.54 .0299
Trt 3 1.133 7.96 .0163
Rep 2 .182 1.91 .2274
Error 6 .285
CONTRAST
Linear 1 1.096 23.10 .0030
Quadratic 1 .015 0.32 .5895
Cubic 1 .021 0.45 .5279











TABLE XXII. TRACE MINERAL PREMIX FOR EXPERIMENT 4 DIETS (260D)


Ingredient


Source % in diet


Grams/100# in diet


Chromic oxide Fisher 0.50000 227.00
Magnesium oxide Fisher 0.06633 30.11
Zinc oxide UF 0.00129 58.57
Iron sulfate UF 0.00065 29.51
Manganese oxide UF 0.00036 16.34
Copper oxide UF 0.00007 3.18
Sulfur UF 0.00001 .45
Calcium sulfate UF 0.00077 34.96
Total 0.62965






TABLE XXIII. VITAMIN PREMIX FOR EXPERIMENT 4 DIETS (260D)

Ingredient1 % in diet Grams/100# diet

Vitamin A 0.00003 0.048
Vitamin D 0.00042 0.191
Vitamin E 0.00229 1.043
Vitamin K2 -- 0.213
Vitamin B12 --0.426
Biotin 0.00002 0.006
Choline 0.09648 43.802
Folic acid 0.00007 0.032
Nicotinic acid 0.00166 0.755
Pantothenic acid 0.00107 0.486
Pyridoxine 0.00013 0.062
Riboflavin 0.00027 0.121
Thiamine 0.00008 0.040
1
2 United States Biochemical Corporation.
milligrams











TABLE XXIV. MEANS EXPERIMENT 4 (260D)

By Treatment

Control

Criteria N Mean SD SEM Var CV
Avg. Daily Gain, kg 8 .86 .204 .072 .0417 23.70
Avg. Feed Intake,kg 8 1.27 .267 .094 .0716 21.02
Feed Efficiency 8 1.60 .699 .247 .4892 43.61
Dry Matter Dig.% 8 92.05 .838 .296 .7027 .91
Organic Matter Dig. % 8 95.04 .584 .206 .3417 .61
Crude Protein Dig. % 8 93.84 1.150 .406 1.3230 1.22
Gross Energy Dig. % 8 94.02 .862 .305 .7444 .91
DE Mcal/kg 8 3.61 .041 .015 .0020 1.14
ME Mcal/kg 8 3.09 .813 .288 .6610 26.35
NDF Dig. % 6 24.48 12.751 5.205 162.5964 52.09
ADF Dig. % 5 4.16 4.883 2.184 23.8507 117.36
Nitrogen balance 8 24.57 8.261 2.920 68.2507 33.62
% Nitrogen retention 8 73.25 .114 .040 .0131 15.61


10% Algae

Avg. Daily Gain, kg 8 .84 .325 .114 .1046 38.54
Avg. Feed Intakekg 8 1.15 .324 .114 .1050 28.21
Feed efficiency 8 1.54 .581 .205 .3377 37.64
Dry Matter Dig.% 8 84.47 2.622 .927 6.8754 3.10
Organic Matter Dig.% 8 89.08 2.109 .745 4.4509 2.36
Crude Protein Dig. % 8 69.97 4.456 1.575 19.8590 6.36
Gross Energy Dig. % 8 85.92 2.268 .802 5.1468 2.64
DE Mcal/kg 8 3.26 .085 .030 .0070 2.62
ME Mcal/kg 8 2.79 .373 .132 .1390 13.38
NDF Dig. % 8 28.63 12.680 4.483 160.7863 44.29
ADF Dig. % 6 27.53 12.684 5.178 160.8869 46.06
Nitrogen balance 8 13.92 4.113 1.454 16.9219 29.54
% Nitrogen retention 8 50.39 .044 .015 .0020 8.80


20% Algae

Avg. Daily Gain, kg 8 .45 .158 .055 .0250 35.01
Avg. Feed Intake,kg 8 1.18 .339 .119 .1149 28.67
Feed efficiency 8 2.96 1.261 .446 1.5921 42.68
Dry Matter Dig.% 8 76.66 2.105 .744 4.4345 2.74
Organic Matter Dig. % 8 83.30 1.599 .564 2.5574 1.92
Crude Protein Dig. % 8 50.30 5.716 2.021 32.6740 11.36
Gross Energy Dig. % 8 78.25 1.890 .668 3.5756 2.41
DE Mcal/kg 8 2.92 .070 .025 .0050 2.40
ME Mcal/kg 8 2.56 .321 .114 .1030 12.57
NDF Dig. % 8 48.28 13.430 4.748 180.3834 27.81
ADF Dig. % 8 38.28 12.255 4.333 150.2058 32.01
Nitrogen balance 8 9.13 4.706 1.664 22.1535 51.53
%Nitrogen retention 8 30.25 .136 .048 .0186 45.11












TABLE XXIV. continued


30% Algae


Criteria


Avg. Daily Gain, kg
Avg. Feed Intake,kg
Feed efficiency
Dry Matter Dig.%
Organic Matter Dig. %
Crude Protein Dig. %
Gross Energy Dig. %
DE Mcal/kg
ME Mcal/kg
NDF Dig. %
ADF Dig. %
Nitrogen balance
% Nitrogen retention


Mean


8 .23
7 1.11
7 3.19
8 71.86
8 79.91
8 33.58
8 74.13
7 2.74
7 2.48
8 57.40
8 47.65
7 4.21
7 16.45


SD SEM


.246
.145
11.893
3.214
2.565
6.672
2.826
.099
.218
8.872
16.623
1.886
.068


.087
.054
4.495
1.136
.907
2.359
.999
.037
.082
3.137
5.842
.713
.025


.0608 106.07
.0211 13.08
144.4431 373.40
10.3311 4.47
6.5806 3.21
44.5178 19.86
7.9878 3.81
.0100 3.61
.0470 8.78
78.7245 15.45
273.0350 34.71
3.5583 44.77
.0046 41A6











TABLE XXV. MEANS BY PEN EXPERIMENT 4

Pen 1


fritoria


N Mean


Avg. Daily Gain, kg 4
Avg. Feed Intakekg 4
Feed efficiency 4
Dry Matter Dig.% 4
Organic Matter Dig. % 4
Crude Protein Dig. % 4
Gross Energy Dig. % 4
DE Mcal/kg 4
ME Mcal/kg 4
NDF Dig. % 4
ADF Dig. % 4
Nitrogen balance 4
% Nitronnn retentinn 4


.30
.84
3.34
81.27
87.13
61.60
83.29
3.15
2.60
41.81
27.66
7.72
17.47


.368
.174
12.344
9.297
6.688
26.959
8.935
.398
.460
24.083
21.518
7.337
.297


Pen 2


Avg. Daily Gain, kg
Avg. Feed Intakekg
Feed efficiency
Dry Matter Dig.%
Organic Matter Dig. %
Crude Protein Dig. %
Gross Energy Dig. %
DE Mcal/kg
ME Mcal/kg
NDF Dig. %
ADF Dig. %
Nitrogen balance,g
% Nitrogen retention


.62
1.41
5.01
81.46
87.02
62.29
83.60
3.16
2.91
38.25
32.43
17.52
46.34


.460
.160
5.695
9.848
7.319
27.382
9.489
.419
.528
15.118
15.779
16.103
.362


Pen 3


Avg. Daily Gain, kg
Avg. Feed Intake,kg
Feed efficiency
Dry Matter Dig.%
Organic Matter Dig. %
Crude Protein Dig. %
Gross Energy Dig. %
DE Mcal/kg
ME Mcal/kg
NDF Dig. %
ADF Dig. %
Nitrogen balance
% Nitrogen retention


4 .54
4 1.19
4 2.98
4 79.70
4 85.33
4 58.18
4 81.62
4 3.06
4 2.94
4 34.34
3 31.13
4 12.29
4 43.53


.316
.206
1.860
10.017
7.875
28.208
10.158
.438
.549
19.971
32.982
7.992
99Q


Var CV


.183
.087
6.172
4.648
3.344
13.479
4.467
.199
.230
12.041
10.759
3.668
.148


.1351
.0305
152.3779
86.4369
44.7361
726.8304
79.8353
.1590
.2110
580.0284
463.0549
53.8329
.0887


124.66
20.86
370.01
11.44
7.67
43.76
10.72
12.65
17.66
57.60
77.80
95.09
80.34


.230
.080
2.847
4.924
3.659
13.691
4.744
.210
.166
7.559
7.889
8.051
1R1


.2117
.0257
32.4412
96.9966
53.5774
749.8070
90.0413
.1760
.1107
228.5714
248.9836
259.3289
111 ?


74.31
11.35
113.61
12.09
8.41
43.96
11.35
13.27
8.20
39.52
48.66
91.91
7q r,


.158
.103
.930
5.008
3.937
14.104
5.079
.219
.274
9.985
19.042
3.996
114


.1001
.0428
3.4628
100.3474
62.0225
795.7277
103.1878
.1920
.3010
398.8620
1087.8343
63.8826
n; 9R


58.13
17.37
62.43
12.56
9.23
48.49
12.44
14.30
18.64
58.16
105.94
65.03
;A 1?


~'''~' '' --


Y II-- ~---- I- --- ---- ---


% Nitroon retenton 46.3


. `" ~ "


% NitroGen retention


"" "" ~""











TABLE XXV. continued.

Pen 4

Criteria N Mean SD SEM Var CV
Avg. Daily Gain, kg 4 .54 .225 .113 .0508 41.38
Avg. Feed Intake,kg 4 1.31 .280 .140 .0787 21.41
Feed efficiency 4 2.76 1.153 .577 1.3296 41.77
Dry Matter Dig.% 4 82.93 7.493 3.746 56.1479 9.03
Organic Matter Dig. % 4 88.62 5.789 2.894 33.5187 6.53
Crude Protein Dig. % 4 64.39 24.209 12.104 586.0852 37.59
Gross Energy Dig. % 4 84.65 7.903 3.951 62.4677 9.33
DE Mcal/kg 4 3.17 .357 .178 .1270 11.24
ME Mcal/kg 4 2.36 .491 .246 .2410 20.85
NDF Dig. % 3 53.19 14.410 8.319 207.6628 27.09
ADF Dig. % 3 43.04 16.628 9.600 276.5099 38.63
Nitrogen balance 4 15.10 8.271 4.136 68.4246 54.79
% Nitrogen retention 4 46.66 .237 .118 .0562 51.02


Pen 5

Avg. Daily Gain, kg 4 .76 .336 .168 .1130 44.24
Avg. Feed Intake,kg 4 1.30 .093 .046 .0087 7.13
Feed efficiency 4 2.00 .910 .455 .8287 45.60
Dry Matter Dig.% 4 81.26 9.062 4.531 82.1342 11.15
Organic Matter Dig. % 4 87.30 6.461 3.230 41.7557 7.40
Crude Protein Dig. % 4 61.77 25.661 12.830 658.5230 41.54
Gross Energy Dig. % 4 83.25 8.912 4.456 79.4301 10.70
DE Mcal/kg 4 3.12 .391 .196 .1530 12.54
ME Mcal/kg 4 2.38 .515 .257 .2650 21.64
NDF Dig. % 4 34.25 24.086 12.043 580.1690 70.33
ADF Dig. % 4 24.08 27.594 13.797 761.4267 114.59
Nitrogen balance 4 13.92 9.809 4.904 96.2330 70.45
% Nitrogen retention 4 43.57 .274 .137 .0754 63.55


Pen 6

Avg. Daily Gain, kg 4 .67 .421 .211 .1775 62.96
Avg. Feed Intake,kg 4 1.13 .328 .164 .1079 28.99
Feed efficiency 4 4.35 6.053 3.026 36.6334 139.16
Dry matter Dig. % 4 82.19 8.058 4.029 64.9427 9.80
Organic Matter Dig. % 4 86.96 6.497 3.248 42.2110 7.47
Crude Protein Dig. % 4 65.85 23.182 11.591 537.4169 35.20
Gross Energy Dig. % 4 83.39 8.537 4.268 72.8919 10.23
DE Mcal/kg 4 3.13 .380 .190 .1440 12.15
ME Mcal/kg 4 2.62 .616 .308 .3790 23.45
NDF Dig. % 4 37.90 12.208 6.104 149.0552 32.21
ADF Dig. % 2 44.57 17.130 12.112 293.4374 38.43
Nitrogen balance 4 12.34 4.025 2.012 16.2040 32.62
% Nitrogen retention 4 47.12 .134 .067 .0179 28.69










TABLE XXV. continued.

Pen 7
Criteria N Mean SD SEM Var CV
Avg. Daily Gain, kg 4 .76 .413 .206 .1706 54.36
Avg. Feed Intake,kg 3 1.23 .263 .152 .0697 21.46
Feed efficiency 3 1.63 1.068 .616 1.1417 65.54
Dry Matter Dig.% 4 78.81 10.471 5.235 109.6600 13.28
Organic Matter Dig. % 4 84.71 7.596 3.798 57.7078 8.96
Crude Protein Dig. % 4 56.97 29.530 14.765 872.0321 51.83
Gross Energy Dig. % 4 80.73 9.347 4.673 87.3800 11.57
DE Mcal/kg 3 3.20 .344 .198 .1180 10.73
ME Mcal/kg 3 3.08 .493 .284 .2430 15.97
NDF Dig. % 3 44.01 13.597 7.850 184.8921 30.90
ADF Dig. % 3 29.22 5.435 3.148 29.7391 18.66
Nitrogen balance 3 14.39 6.769 3.908 45.8251 47.02
% Nitrogen retention 3 46.23 .156 .090 .0245 34.10


Pen 8

Avg. Daily Gain, kg 4 .58 .359 .179 .1295 62.21
Avg. Feed Intake,kg 4 1.04 .341 .170 .1164 32.76
Feed efficiency 4 2.80 2.631 1.315 6.9223 94.14
Dry Matter Dig.% 4 82.47 8.210 4.105 67.4084 9.95
Organic Matter Dig. % 4 87.60 6.035 3.018 36.4325 6.89
Crude Protein Dig. % 4 64.35 24.625 12.312 606.4091 38.27
Gross Energy Dig. % 4 84.13 8.157 4.079 66.5518 9.69
DE Mcal/kg 4 3.18 .370 .185 .1370 11.56
ME Mcal/kg 4 3.06 .421 .211 .1770 13.75
NDF Dig. % 4 45.89 23.066 11.533 532.0705 50.26
ADF Dig. % 4 34.28 22.832 11.416 521.3114 66.61
Nitrogen balance 4 12.94 13.174 6.587 173.5771 101.81
% Nitrogen retention 4 41.14 .324 .162 .1051 79.57










TABLE XXVI. MEANS BY REPLICATION EXPERIMENT 4 (260D)

Replication (1)

Criteria N Mean SD SEFM Var CV
Avg. Daily Gain, kg 16 .50 .340 .085 .1156 67.90
Avg. Feed Intake,kg 16 1.19 .292 .073 .0857 24.65
Feed efficiency 16 1.86 6.951 1.737 48.3244 374.85
Dry Matter Dig.% 16 81.34 8.329 2.082 69.3761 10.24
Organic Matter Dig. % 16 87.02 6.341 1.585 40.2183 7.28
Crude Protein Dig. % 16 61.61 24.021 6.005 577.0226 38.98
Gross Energy Dig. % 16 83.29 8.269 2.067 68.3759 9.92
DE Mcal/kg 16 3.11 .287 .072 .0829 7.01
ME Mcal/kg 16 3.01 .318 .079 .1017 7.95
NDF Dig. % 15 41.14 18.310 4.727 335.2663 44.50
ADF Dig. % 14 33.06 20.178 5.392 407.1539 61.03
Nitrogen balance 16 13.16 10.162 2.540 103.2678 77.24
% Nitrogen retention 16 43.25 .259 .064 .0672 60.46



Replication (2)

Avg. Daily Gain, kg 16 .69 .352 .088 .1241 50.93
Avg. Feed Intake,kg 15 1.17 .266 .068 .0708 22.67
Feed efficiency 15 2.76 3.291 .850 10.8364 119.12
Dry Matter Dig.% 16 81.18 8.188 2.047 67.0488 10.08
Organic Matter Dig. % 16 86.64 6.083 1.520 37.0045 7.02
Crude Protein Dig. % 16 62.23 23.387 5.847 546.9897 37.58
Gross Energy Dig. % 16 82.87 7.937 1.984 63.0055 9.57
DE Mcal/kg 15 3.07 .240 .062 .0580 5.91
ME Mcal/kg 15 3.00 .253 .065 .0640 6.32
NDF Dig. % 15 40.28 17.907 4.623 320.6705 44.46
ADF Dig. % 13 31.56 20.019 5.552 400.7924 63.44
Nitrogen balance 15 13.33 8.276 2.137 68.5019 62.07
% Nitrogen retention 15 44.56 .216 .055 .0466 49.05











TABLE XXVII. MEANS BY PERIOD EXPERIMENT 4

Period 1

Criteria N Mean SD SEM Var CV
Avg. Daily Gain, kg 8 .73 .381 .134 .1452 52.50
Avg. Feed Intake,kg 8 1.03 .290 .102 .0843 28.20
Feed efficiency 8 2.04 1.525 .539 2.3283 74.92
Dry Matter Dig.% 8 82.46 7.339 2.594 53.8642 8.90
Organic Matter Dig. % 8 87.78 5.252 1.857 27.5866 5.98
Crude Protein Dig. % 8 63.42 22.876 8.088 523.3545 36.07
Gross Energy Dig. % 8 83.88 7.300 2.580 53.2897 8.70
DE Mcal/kg 8 3.15 .328 .116 .1080 10.41
ME Mcal/kg 8 2.97 .372 .131 .1380 12.52
NDF Dig. % 8 52.98 17.739 6.271 314.6925 33.48
ADF Dig. % 7 43.70 22.319 8.435 498.1459 33.48
Nitrogen balance 8 9.66 7.647 2.703 58.4881 79.18
% Nitrogen retention 8 35.46 .216 .076 .0469 62.18


Period 2

Avg. Daily Gain, kg 8 .42 .219 .077 .0482 52.58
Avg. Feed Intake,kg 8 1.21 .267 .094 .0716 22.02
Feed efficiency 8 4.20 3.836 1.356 14.7181 91.42
Dry Matter Dig.% 8 80.58 8.793 3.108 77.3243 10.91
Organic Matter Dig. % 8 85.80 7.209 2.549 51.9798 8.40
Crude Protein Dig. % 8 60.98 25.849 9.139 668.2141 42.39
Gross Energy Dig. % 8 82.01 9.195 3.250 84.5472 11.21
DE Mcal/kg 8 3.08 .399 .141 .1590 12.94
ME Mcal/kg 8 2.38 .456 .161 .2080 19.15
NDF Dig. % 8 34.34 13.299 5.026 176.8670 38.72
ADF Dig. % 8 35.63 22.001 8.315 484.0443 61.75
Nitrogen balance 8 13.19 8.507 3.007 72.3725 64.50
% Nitrogen retention 8 44.62 .232 .082 .0542 53.35


Period 3

Avg. Daily Gain, kg 8 .62 .424 .1502 .180 68.73
Avg. Feed Intake,kg 8 1.15 .183 .0649 .033 15.98
Feed efficiency 8 3.95 4.342 1.5354 18.860 109.94
Dry Matter Dig.% 8 82.37 7.732 2.7337 59.786 9.38
Organic Matter Dig. % 8 87.84 5.790 2.0474 33.533 6.59
Crude Protein Dig. % 8 64.59 21.779 7.7002 474.345 33.71
Gross Energy Dig. % 8 84.23 7.353 2.5997 54.067 8.73
DE Mcal/kg 8 3.18 .334 .1180 .112 10.51
ME Mcal/kg 8 2.86 .404 .1430 .163 14.14
NDF Dig. % 7 41.56 13.896 5.2525 193.118 33.44
ADF Dig. % 7 27.19 17.663 6.6763 312.012 64.97
Nitrogen balance 8 13.00 6.641 2.3480 44.104 51.09
% Nitrogen retention 8 .46 .213 .0756 .045 46.18











TABLE XXVII. continued.

Period 4

Criteria N Mean SD SEM, Vr CV
Avg. Daily Gain, kg 8 .62 .352 .124 .1245 56.56
Avg. Feed Intake,kg 7 1.35 .301 .114 .0909 22.30
Feed efficiency 7 2.17 8.950 3.38 80.1103 605.96
Dry Matter Dig.% 8 79.63 9.736 3.442 94.8064 12.22
Organic Matter Dig. % 8 85.91 6.940 2.453 48.1699 8.07
Crude Protein Dig. % 8 58.70 26.824 9.483 719.5391 45.69
Gross Energy Dig. % 8 82.22 9.241 3.267 85.4037 11.24
DE Mcal/kg 7 3.17 .377 .143 .1420 11.88
ME Mcal/kg 7 2.74 .733 .277 .5370 26.78
NDF Dig. % 7 33.28 20.105 7.108 404.2451 60.42
ADF Dig. % 6 21.25 9.498 3.877 90.2114 44.69
Nitrogen balance 7 17.68 13.182 4.982 173.7877 74.58
% Nitrogen retention 7 .50 .300 .113 .0901 60.33










TABLE XXVIII. STATISTICAL SUMMARY EXPERIMENT 4 (260D)

Dependent Variable: Average Daily Gain,Kg


Mean
.60


MSE
.038


Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
.197 .76 33.07


AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 7 2.263 10.86 .0001
Trt 3 2.674 19.41 .0001
Rep 1 .009 7.51 .0114
Per 3 .570 3.43 .0330
Error 24 0.038
Contrast
Linear 1 2.071 53.31 .0001
Quadratic 1 0.076 1.98 .1722
Cubic 1 0.114 2.94 .0995


Dependent Variable: Daily Feed intake, kg

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
1.18 .278 .186 .22 23.56
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 7 .498 .92 .5092
Trt 3 .092 .40 .7571
Rep 1 .000 .01 .9434
Per 3 .383 1.65 .2048
Error 23 1.780
Contrast
Linear 1 0.056 .73 .0001
Quadratic 1 0.010 .14 .7126
Cubic 1 0.023 .30 .5890


Dependent Variable: Dry Matter Digestibility

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
81.26 4.58 2.142 .95 2.63
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 7 1936.460 60.30 .0001
Trt 3 1890.165 137.33 .0001
Rep 1 .196 .04 .8377
Per 3 46.098 3.35 .0358
Error 24 110.109
Contrast
Linear 1 1870.492 407.70 .0001
Quadratic 1 15.488 3.38 .0786
Cubic 1 4.183 .91 .3491










TABLE XXVIII. continued.

Dependent Variable: Organic Matter Digestibility


Mean
86.83


MSE
2.738


Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
1.655 .94 1.90
AOV Table


Source OF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 7 1093.78 57.06 .0001
Trt 3 1061.99 129.26 .0001
Rep 1 1.16 .43 .5199
Per 3 30.62 3.73 .0249
Error 24 65.72
Contrast
Linear 1 1046.96 382.30 .0001
Quadratic 1 13.09 4.78 .0388
Cubic 1 1.94 .71 .4080


Dependent Variable: Crude Protein Digestibility

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
61.92 21.68 4.65 .97 7.52

AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 7 16342.761 107.65 .0001
Trt 3 16174.627 248.61 .0001
Rep 1 3.059 0.14 .7105
Per 3 165.074 2.54 .0805
Error 24 932.007
Contrast
Linear 1 16071.571 741.08 .0001
Quadratic 1 102.428 4.72 .0399
Cubic 1 0.627 .03 .8664


Dependent Variable: Gross Energy Digestibility

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
83.08 3.74 1.94 .95 2.32
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 7 1882.279 71.84 .0001
Trt 3 1849.931 164.74 .0001
Rep 1 1.391 0.37 .5479
Per 3 30.959 2.76 .0644
Error 24 89.834
Contrast
Linear 1 1814.517 484.77 .0001
Quadratic 1 31.483 8.41 .0079
Cubic 1 3.930 1.05 .3157










TABLE XXVIII. continued.

Dependent Variable: Neutral Detergent Fiber Digestibility


Mean
40.71


MSE
72.91


Root MSE R-Square
8.54 .83
AOV Table


Coefficient of
20.97


Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 7 7584.822 14.86 .0001
Trt 3 5647.420 25.82 .0001
Rep 1 1.126 .02 .9022
Per 3 2142.680 9.80 .0003
Error 22 1603.927
Contrast
Linear 1 5130.969 70.38 .0001
Quadratic 1 25.373 .35 .5612
Cubic 1 241.419 3.31 .0824


Dependent Variable: Acid Detergent Fiber Digestibility

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
32.34 114.64 10.71 .79 33.11
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 7 7939.627 9.89 .0001
Trt 3 6026.769 17.52 .0001
Rep 1 72.399 .63 .4366
Per 3 1596.731 4.64 .0134
Error 19 2178.151
Contrast
Linear 1 6013.581 52.46 .0001
Quadratic 1 135.399 1.18 .2907
Cubic 1 .057 0.00 .9825


Dependent Variable: Feed Efficiency

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation

2.29 31.122 5.578 .19 243.16
AOV Table

Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 7 167.164 .77 .6201
Trt 3 12.764 .14 .9371
Rep 1 3.830 .12 .7289
Per 3 142.527 1.53 .2343
Error 23 715.808
Contrast
Linear 1 8.509 .27 .6060
Quadratic 1 .055 0.00 .9688
Cubic 1 3.846 0.12 .7284


Variation










TABLE XXVIII. continued.


Dependent Variable: Digestible energy


Mean
3.14


MSE
.005


Root MSE R-Square
0.070 .97
AOV Table


Coefficient of Variation
2.23


Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 7 3.436 99.14 .0001
Trt 3 3.384 227.82 .0001
Rep 1 .001 .10 .7527
Per 3 .041 2.82 .0613
Error 23 .113
Contrast
Linear 1 3.245 655.29 .0001
Quadratic 1 .064 12.95 .0015
Cubic 1 .009 1.86 .1860


Dependent Variable: Metabolizable energy

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
2.73 .219 .468 .40 17.10
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 7 3.308 2.16 .0773
Trt 3 1.720 2.62 .0749
Rep 1 .015 .07 .7899
Per 3 1.560 2.38 .0961
Error 23 .218
Contrast
Linear 1 1.574 7.20 .0133
Quadratic 1 .094 .43 .5165
Cubic 1 .002 0.01 .9098


Dependent Variable: Nitrogen Balance

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
13.24 26.064 5.105 .76 38.55
AOV Table
Source OF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 7 1908.813 10.46 .0001
Trt 3 1666.326 21.31 .0001
Rep 1 0.185 .01 .9336
Per 3 171.883 2.20 .1156
Error 23 599.476
Contrast
Linear 1 1544.880 59.27 .0001
Quadratic 1 73.784 2.83 .1060
Cubic 1 12.074 0.46 .5029










TABLE XXVIII. continued.

Dependent Variable: Nitrogen Retention


MSE
0.009


Root MSE R-Square
0.092 .88
AOV Table


Coefficient of
21.19


Source OF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 7 1.467 24.73 .0001
Trt 3 1.371 53.94 .0001
Rep 1 0.00009 0.01 .9176
Per 3 0.068 2.69 .0703
Error 23 0.194
Contrast
Linear 1 1.331 157.11 .0001
Quadratic 1 0.017 2.05 .1655
Cubic 1 0.001 0.08 .7839


Mean
.43


Variation











TABLE XXIX. MEANS EXPERIMENT 5 (260E)

By Treatment

Control


Initial weight, kg
Final starter weight, kg
Final grower weight,kg
Final trial weight, kg
Starter daily gain, kg
Gower daily gain, kg
Finisher daily gain, kg
Total daily gain, kg
Starter feed intake, kg/pen
Grower feed intake, kg/pen
Finisher feed intake
Total feed intake
Starter feed efficiency
Grower feed efficiency
Finisher feed efficiency
Total feed efficiency
Hot carcass weight
Viscera weight
GI tract fill
Left side length
Right side length
Avg Backfat thickness
Loin eye area
Marbling
Fat smell
Flavor
Juciness
Tenderness
Connective tissue
Off flavor
Warner Bratzler shear
Liver aluminum
Liver cadmium
Liver nickel
Liver lead
Liver chromium
I Ivor m rrtirv


rrit+ri4


"'' *1 ''~* **


N Mean
.8 9.26
.8 35.36
.8 57.61
.8 102.06
.8 .64
.8 .80
.8 .77
.8 .73
3 1.29
3 2.34
3 2.77
3 2.20
3 2.02
3 2.95
3 3.61
3 3.00
.8 75.68
.8 3.80
.8 2.43
.8 81.17
.8 81.00
.8 3.30
.8 31.99
.8 13.56
.8 1.73
.8 6.03
.8 5.41
.8 5.73
.8 5.26
.8 3.95
.8 4.59
.8 .119
.8 .057
.8 .199
.8 .318
.8 .197
R nAR


SD
1.173
3.284
5.251
8.551
.066
.098
.089
.067
.041
.029
.072
.026
.037
.155
.041
.056
7.498
.758
.506
3.028
3.135
.449
2.912
4.488
.3446
.4485
.7958
.7294
.6298
.0861
.6670
.173
.025
.253
.550
.182
1 I f


SEM
.276
.774
1.238
2.016
.016
.023
.021
.016
.024
.016
.042
.022
.022
.090
.024
.032
1.767
.179
.119
.714
.739
.106
.686
1.058
.0812
.1057
.1876
.1719
.1484
.0203
.1572
.041
.006
.060
.130
.043
.037


Var
1.375
10.783
27.571
73.127
.004
.010
.008
.004
.002
.001
.005
.001
.001
.024
.002
.003
56.213
.574
.256
9.167
9.830
.202
8.477
20.144
.119
.201
.633
.532
.397
.007
.445
.030
.001
.064
.302
.033
.024


CY
12.66
9.28
9.11
8.37
10.34
12.28
11.63
9.14
3.16
1.17
1.22
1.17
1.84
5.26
1.14
1.85
9.90
19.94
20.85
3.73
3.87
13.62
9.09
33.11
19.88
7.43
14.70
12.72
11.98
2.17
14.53
145.54
43.61
127.04
172.14
92.06
1 Q 971


.037


." "


IY VYI I~Y











TABLE XXIX. continued.

Treatment 2

Criteria N Mean SD SEM Var CV
Initial weight, kg 18 9.30 1.343 .317 1.803 14.44
Final starter weight, kg 18 34.80 4.543 1.071 20.643 13.05
Final grower weight,kg 18 56.75 6.161 1.452 37.953 10.85
Final trial weight, kg 18 101.25 11.146 2.627 124.240 11.00
Starter daily gain, kg 18 .62 .085 .020 .007 13.71
Gower daily gain, kg 18 .78 .090 .021 .008 11.49
Finisher daily gain, kg 18 .79 .121 .028 .015 15.20
Total daily gain, kg 18 .73 .086 .020 .007 11.69
Starter feed intake, kg/pen 3 1.30 .074 .042 .005 5.67
Grower feed intake, kg/pen 3 2.34 .127 .073 .016 5.43
Finisher feed intake,kg/pen 3 2.89 .181 .104 .033 6.25
Total feed intake kg/pen 3 2.24 .099 .057 .010 4.41
Starter feed efficiency 3 2.08 .038 .022 .001 1.83
Grower feed efficiency 3 2.98 .144 .083 .021 4.84
Finisher feed efficiency 3 3.65 .027 .016 .001 .74
Total feed efficiency 3 3.05 .029 .016 .001 .93
Hot carcass weight 18 73.74 9.568 2.255 91.542 12.97
Viscera weight 18 3.88 .562 .133 .316 14.49
GI tract fill 18 2.67 .626 .148 .392 23.50
Left side length 18 81.56 3.043 .717 9.261 3.73
Right side length 18 81.52 3.128 .737 9.783 3.83
Avg Backfat thickness 18 3.22 .531 .125 .282 16.46
Loin eye area 18 30.15 2.506 .591 6.280 8.31
Marbling 18 15.06 6.169 1.454 38.056 40.97
Fat odor 18 1.96 .3400 .080 .116 17.36
Flavor 18 6.01 .3943 .093 .156 6.56
Juciness 18 5.42 .7329 .173 .537 13.53
Tenderness 18 5.94 .7011 .165 .492 11.80
Connective tissue 18 5.38 .8073 .190 .652 15.01
Off flavor 18 3.91 .2712 .064 .074 6.94
Warner Bratzler shear 18 4.45 .4385 .103 .192 9.85
Liver aluminum 18 .200 .184 .043 .034 92.04
Liver cadmium 18 .076 .055 .013 .003 72.46
Liver nickel 18 .140 .181 .043 .033 128.99
Liver lead 18 .460 .615 .145 .378 133.69
Liver chromium 18 .220 .181 .043 .033 82.09
Liver mercury 18 .080 .147 .035 .022 184.35











TABLE XXIX. continued


Criteria
Initial weight, kg 1
Final starter weight, kg 1
Final grower weight,kg 1
Final trial weight, kg 1
Starter daily gain, kg 1
Gower daily gain, kg 1
Finisher daily gain, kg 1
Total daily gain, kg 1
Starter feed intake, kg/pen
Grower feed intake, kg/pen
Finisher feed intakekg/pen
Total feed intake, kg/pen
Starter feed efficiency
Grower feed efficiency
Finisher feed efficiency
Total feed efficiency
Hot carcass weight 1
Viscera weight 1
GI tract fill 1
Left side length 1
Right side length 1
Avg Backfat thickness 1
Loin eye area 1
Marbling 1
Fat odor 1
Flavor 1
Juciness 1
Tenderness 1
Connective tissue 1
Off flavor 1
Warner Bratzler shear 1
Liver aluminum 1
Liver cadmium 1
Liver nickel 1
Liver lead 1
Liver chromium 1
liver mercury 1


Treatment 3
N Mean
.8 9.31
.8 31.70
.8 51.18
.8 96.89 1
.8 .55
.8 .70
.8 .71
.8 .66
3 1.22
3 2.21
3 2.73
3 2.15
3 2.23
3 3.17
3 3.84
3 3.28
.8 72.27 1I
.8 3.31
.8 2.81
8 80.18 3
8 80.04
8 3.16
7 29.37
8 14.28 5
8 1.77
8 5.82
8 5.43
8 5.61
8 4.95
8 3.90
8 4.83
8 .218
8 .053
8 .078
8 .317
8 .178
R _ncl


SD
1.397
5.346
7.762
3.076
.109
.132
.196
.133
.066
.044
.093
.033
.043
.075
.222
.089
1.991
.572
1.016
3.904
1.079
.728
2.754
.074
.4231
.3586
.5537
.6839
.8451
.1242
.8490
.179
.030
.151
.424
.184
n c;


SEM
.329
1.260
1.830
4.261
.026
.031
.046
.031
.038
.026
.054
.019
.025
.043
.128
.052
3.533
.135
.240
.920
.961
.172
.668
1.196
.100
.085
.131
.161
.199
.029
.200
.042
.007
.036
.100
.043
07


Var
1.951
28.585
60.255
326.739
.012
.017
.038
.018
.004
.002
.009
.001
.002
.006
.049
.008
224.725
.327
1.033
15.241
16.635
.530
7.585
25.742
.179
.129
.307
.468
.714
.015
.721
.032
.001
.023
.179
.034
nn7


CV
15.00
16.86
15.16
18.65
19.95
18.99
27.47
20.29
5.42
2.00
3.39
1.53
1.92
2.35
5.79
2.72
20.74
17.26
36.16
4.86
5.09
23.01
9.37
35.53
23.87
6.16
10.18
12.20
17.05
3.18
17.57
82.18
56.75
192.53
133.52
102.92
161 71











TABLE XXX. MEANS BY REPLICATION EXPERIMENT 5

Replication 1

Criteria N Mean SD SEM Var CV
Initial weight, kg 18 9.31 1.204 .284 1.449 12.92
Final starter weight, kg 18 33.64 5.085 1.199 25.858 15.11
Final grower weight,kg 18 54.91 7.554 1.781 57.066 13.75
Final trial weight, kg 18 100.85 13.874 3.270 192.488 13.75
Starter daily gain, kg 18 .59 .099 .023 .010 16.65
Gower daily gain, kg 18 .76 .125 .029 .016 16.43
Finisher daily gain, kg 18 .77 .137 .032 .019 17.93
Total daily gain, kg 18 .71 .104 .025 .011 14.65
Starter feed intake, kg/pen 3 1.25 .027 .016 .001 2.17
Grower feed intake, kg/pen 3 2.25 .061 .035 .004 2.70
Finisher feed intake,kg/pen 3 2.80 .002 .001 .000 0.08
Total feed intake, kg/pen 3 2.19 .006 .003 .000 0.26
Starter feed efficiency 3 2.11 .134 .077 .018 6.37
Grower feed efficiency 3 2.97 .175 .101 .031 5.90
Finisher feed efficiency 3 3.65 .096 .056 .009 2.63
Total feed efficiency 3 3.08 .146 .084 .021 4.74
Hot carcass weight 18 75.12 11.742 2.768 137.876 15.63
Viscera weight 18 3.52 .555 .131 .308 15.75
GI tract fill 18 2.59 .652 .154 .426 25.19
Left side length 18 81.45 3.851 .908 14.833 4.72
Right side length 18 81.29 3.987 .940 15.893 4.90
Avg Backfat thickness 18 3.13 .559 .132 .312 17.87
Loin eye area 18 31.09 2.649 .625 7.020 8.52
Marbling 18 14.67 4.200 .990 17.647 28.64
Fat odor 18 1.81 .472 .111 .223 26.00
Flavor 18 3.90 .124 .029 .016 3.18
Juciness 18 5.40 .788 .186 .621 14.58
Tenderness 18 5.67 .699 .165 .488 12.32
Connective tissue 18 4.99 .829 .195 .686 16.61
Off flavor 18 3.90 .124 .029 .016 3.18
Warner Bratzler shear 18 10.64 1.925 .454 3.706 18.10
Liver aluminum 18 .179 .185 .044 .034 102.91
Liver cadmium 18 .054 .028 .007 .001 52.04
Liver nickel 18 .199 .221 .052 .049 110.93
Liver lead 18 .379 .585 .138 .342 154.32
Liver chromium 18 .139 .179 .042 .032 129.09
Liver mercury 18 .078 .127 .030 .016 163.46











TABLE XXX. continued.

Replication 2

Criteria N Mean SD SEM Var CV
Initial weight, kg 18 9.27 1.354 .319 1.833 14.59
Final starter weight, kg 18 34.22 5.102 1.202 26.027 14.90
Final grower weight,kg 18 55.54 7.176 1.691 51.492 12.92
Final trial weight, kg 18 99.97 11.957 2.818 142.965 11.96
Starter daily gain, kg 18 .61 .110 .026 .012 18.06
Gower daily gain, kg 18 .76 .101 .024 .010 13.29
Finisher daily gain, kg 18 .79 .150 .035 .022 18.95
Total daily gain, kg 18 .73 .100 .023 .010 13.73
Starter feed intake, kg/pen 3 1.28 .121 .070 .015 9.42
Grower feed intake, kg/pen 3 2.35 .112 .064 .012 4.75
Finisher feed intake,kg/pen 3 2.90 .176 .102 .031 6.07
Total feed intake, kg/pen 3 2.24 .106 .061 .011 4.72
Starter feed efficiency 3 2.11 .062 .036 .004 2.95
Grower feed efficiency 3 3.09 .191 .111 .037 6.19
Finisher feed efficiency 3 3.66 .026 .015 .001 0.70
Total feed efficiency 3 3.10 .109 .063 .012 3.50
Hot carcass weight 18 71.95 9.416 2.219 88.652 13.08
Viscera weight 18 3.94 .804 .190 .647 20.43
GI tract fill 18 2.71 .831 .196 .691 30.69
Left side length 18 80.79 3.084 .727 9.514 3.81
Right side length 18 80.73 3.203 .755 10.262 3.96
Avg Backfat thickness 18 3.26 .426 .100 .181 13.05
Loin eye area 18 30.22 3.533 .833 12.482 11.69
Marbling 18 14.78 5.786 1.364 33.477 39.15
Fat odor 18 1.81 .3195 .075 .102 17.67
Flavor 18 3.93 .1064 .025 .011 2.70
Juciness 18 5.54 .6260 .148 .392 11.29
Tenderness 18 5.82 .6700 .158 .449 11.50
Connective tissue 18 5.21 .7145 .168 .511 13.72
Off flavor 18 3.93 .1064 .025 .011 2.70
Warner Bratzler shear 18 9.97 1.1178 .264 1.249 11.20
Liver aluminum 18 .158 .182 .043 .033 115.06
Liver cadmium 18 .073 .057 .014 .003 78.06
Liver nickel 18 .118 .172 .041 .030 145.54
Liver lead 18 .318 .367 .086 .135 115.41
Liver chromium 18 .217 .178 .042 .032 82.11
Liver mercury 18 .083 .161 .038 .026 195.48











TABLE XXX. continued

Replication 3

Criteria N Mean SD SEM Var CV
Initial weight, kg 18 9.29 1.360 .320 1.849 14.64
Final starter weight, kg 18 34.00 4.020 .947 16.157 11.82
Final grower weightkg 18 55.09 6.540 1.542 42.778 11.87
Final trial weight, kg 18 99.39 14.278 3.365 203.862 14.36
Starter daily gain, kg 18 .60 .081 .019 .006 13.37
Gower daily gain, kg 18 .75 .124 .029 .015 16.51
Finisher daily gain, kg 18 .72 .141 .033 .020 19.65
Total daily gain, kg 18 .69 .110 .026 .012 16.03
Starter feed intake, kg/pen 3 1.28 .028 .016 .001 2.17
Grower feed intake, kg/pen 3 2.29 .115 .067 .013 5.04
Finisher feed intake,kg/pen 3 2.69 .073 .042 .005 2.70
Total feed intake, kg/pen 3 2.16 .035 .020 .001 1.63
Starter feed efficiency 3 2.12 .126 .073 .016 5.95
Grower feed efficiency 3 3.04 .122 .071 .015 4.01
Finisher feed efficiency 3 3.78 .269 .156 .073 7.12
Total feed efficiency 3 3.16 .195 .113 .038 6.19
Hot carcass weight 18 74.62 12.082 2.848 145.982 16.19
Viscera weight 18 3.53 .586 .138 .344 16.60
GI tract fill 18 2.60 .797 .188 .635 30.61
Left side length 18 80.68 3.167 .747 10.032 3.92
Right side length 18 80.54 3.312 .781 10.970 4.11
Avg Backfat thickness 18 3.30 .716 .169 .512 21.69
Loin eye area 17 30.27 2.455 .595 6.027 7.91
Marbling 18 13.44 5.732 1.351 32.850 42.63
Fat odor 18 1.84 .3445 .081 .119 18.70
Flavor 18 3.93 .2660 .063 .071 6.77
Juciness 18 5.32 .6613 .156 .437 12.43
Tenderness 18 5.78 .7752 .183 .601 13.41
Connective tissue 18 5.39 .7599 .179 .577 14.08
Off flavor 18 3.93 .2660 .063 .071 6.77
Warner Bratzler shear 18 9.97 1.3086 .308 1.712 13.13
Liver aluminum 18 .199 .184 .043 .034 92.04
Liver cadmium 18 .060 .025 .006 .001 41.27
Liver nickel 18 .100 .207 .049 .043 206.82
Liver lead 18 .399 .628 .148 .394 157.36
Liver chromium 18 .239 .174 .041 .030 72.77
Liver mercury 18 .058 .106 .025 .011 182.38











TABLE XXXI. MEANS BY SEX EXPERIMENT 5 (260E)

Sex (Males)

Criteria N Mean SD SEM Var CV
Initial weight, kg 27 9.14 1.269 .244 1.610 13.88
Final starter weight, kg 27 33.87 4.441 .855 19.721 13.11
Final grower weight,kg 27 56.03 6.171 1.188 38.086 11.01
Final trial weight, kg 27 105.52 10.224 1.968 104.525 9.68
Starter daily gain, kg 27 .60 .086 .017 .007 14.26
Gower daily gain, kg 27 .79 .095 .018 .009 11.95
Finisher daily gain, kg 27 .83 .102 .020 .010 12.22
Total daily gain, kg 27 .75 .070 .013 .005 9.29
Hot carcass weight 27 78.13 9.064 1.744 82.150 11.60
Viscera weight 27 3.85 .556 .107 .309 14.43
GI tract fill 27 2.70 .823 .158 .678 30.48
Left side length 27 81.91 2.497 .481 6.235 3.04
Right side length 27 81.79 2.717 .523 7.381 3.32
Avg Backfat thickness 27 3.41 .577 .111 .333 16.91
Loin eye area 27 29.93 3.058 .589 9.355 10.22
Marbling 27 13.19 5.929 1.141 35.157 44.96
Fat smell 27 1.86 .413 .080 .171 22.27
Flavor 27 3.89 .158 .030 .025 4.05
Juciness 27 5.45 .668 .129 .447 12.25
Tenderness 27 5.86 .698 .134 .487 11.92
Connective tissue 27 5.29 .821 .158 .674 15.53
Off flavor 27 3.89 .158 .030 .025 4.05
Warner Bratzler shear 27 4.67 .759 .146 .576 16.24
Liver aluminum 27 .172 .128 .035 .033 105.77
Liver cadmium 27 .069 .048 .009 .002 69.42
Liver nickel 27 .146 .180 .035 .032 122.91
Liver lead 27 .398 .567 .109 .321 142.39
Liver chromium 27 .172 .182 .035 .033 105.77
Liver mercury 27 .094 .168 .032 .028 179.82











TABLE XXXI. continued

Sex (females)

Criteria N Mean SD SEM Var CV
Initial weight, kg 27 9.44 1.303 .251 1.698 13.80
Final starter weight, kg 27 34.04 4.987 .960 24.872 14.65
Final grower weight,kg 27 54.33 7.715 1.485 59.515 14.19
Final trial weight, kg 27 94.62 13.679 2.633 187.129 14.45
Starter daily gain, kg 27 .60 .106 .020 .011 17.64
Gower daily gain, kg 27 .73 .126 .024 .016 17.33
Finisher daily gain, kg 27 .68 .142 .027 .020 20.83
Total daily gain, kg 27 .67 .116 .022 .013 17.41
Hot carcass weight 27 69.67 11.327 2.180 128.303 16.25
Viscera weight 27 3.48 .739 .142 .547 21.26
GI tract fill 27 2.57 .681 .131 .464 26.54
Left side length 27 80.03 3.828 .737 14.655 4.78
Right side length 27 79.92 3.909 .752 15.282 4.89
Avg Backfat thickness 27 3.04 .515 .099 .265 16.90
Loin eye area 27 31.18 4.236 .815 17.943 27.49
Marbling 27 31.18 2.622 .514 6.875 8.41
Fat odor 27 1.79 .342 .066 .117 19.14
Flavor 27 3.95 .192 .037 .037 4.85
Juciness 27 5.39 .719 .138 .517 13.34
Tenderness 27 5.66 .712 .137 .507 12.57
Connective tissue 27 5.11 .726 .140 .527 14.21
Off flavor 27 3.95 .192 .037 .037 4.85
Warner Bratzler shear 27 4.57 .598 .115 .358 13.08
Liver aluminum 27 .186 .183 .035 .033 98.20
Liver cadmium 27 .056 .029 .006 .001 51.72
Liver nickel 27 .132 .225 .043 .051 170.48
Liver lead 27 .332 .498 .096 .248 149.87
Liver chromium 27 .225 .176 .034 .031 78.17
Liver mercury 27 .052 .077 .015 .006 148.14





74




TABLE XXXII. STATISTICAL SUMMARY EXPERIMENT 5 (260E)

Dependent Variable: Starter Average Daily Gain,Kg


Mean
.60


MSE
.005


Source
Model
Trt
Rep
Sex
Trt*Rep
Trt*Sex
Rep*Sex
Trt*Rep*Sex
Int Wt. covar
Error
Contrast
Linear


Root MSE
.073


R-Square Coefficient of Variation
.61 12.13
AOV Table


SS
.297
.087
.002
.002
.015
.013
.015
.045
.121
0.483


2.072


F-Value
3.10
8.22
.23
.54
.72
1.25
1.49
2.15
22.82


53.31


PR>F
.0020
.0012
.7928
.4680
.5816
.2983
.2404
.0951
.0001


.0001


Quadratic 1 0.076 1.98 .1722


Dependent Variable: Grower Average Daily Gain,Kg

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
.76 .009 .097 .53 12.80
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 18 .373 2.20 .0224
Trt 2 .107 5.68 .0073
Rep 2 .001 .03 .9659
Sex 1 .065 6.95 .0124
Trt*Rep 4 .016 .43 .7839
Trt*Sex 2 .022 1.21 .3101
Rep*Sex 2 .043 2.30 .1153
Trt*Rep*Sex 4 .113 3.01 .0311
Int Wt. covar 1 .011 1.26 .2686
Error 35 0.329
Contrast
Linear 1 .089 9.47 .0040
Quadratic 1 0.017 1.89 .1776


-rI











TABLE XXXII. continued.

Dependent Variable: Finisher Average Daily Gain,Kg


Mean
.76


MSE
.449


Root MSE
.012


Source DF
Model 18
Trt 2
Rep 2
Sex 1
Trt*Rep 4
Trt*Sex 2
Rep*Sex 2
Trt*Rep*Sex 4
Int Wt Covar 1
Error 35
Contrast
Linear 1
nll r fi 1


R-Square
.59
AOV Table
SS
.644
.059
.054
.315
.023
.150
.005
.027
.025
.012


.027
1 13


Coefficient of
14.96

F-Value
2.78
2.32
2.13
24.51
.46
5.87
.21
.53
1.96


Variation


PR>F
.0046
.1134
.1341
.0001
.7625
.0064
.8143
.7119
.1703


2.12
" n


.1539
1 "'1


Dependent Variable: Total Average Daily Gain,Kg

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
.71 .006 .081 .60 11.47
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 18 .341 2.88 .0036
Trt 2 .069 5.27 .0100
Rep 2 .012 .98 .3864
Sex 1 .111 16.94 .0002
Trt*Rep 4 .008 .32 .8659
Trt*Sex 2 .062 4.75 .0150
Rep*Sex 2 .011 .89 .4207
Trt*Rep*Sex 4 .037 1.42 .2475
Int Wt covar 1 .045 6.84 .0131
Error 35 0.230
Contrast
Linear 1 .050 7.64 .0090
Quadratic 1 .019 2.90 .0972











TABLE XXXII. continued.

Dependent Variable: Starter Feed Intake,Kg


Mean
1.27


MSE
.005


Root MSE
.072


R-Square
.39
AOV Table


Coefficient of Variation
5.70


Source OF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 4 .013 .63 .6696
Trt 2 .011 1.06 .4259
Rep 2 .001 .19 .8365
Error 4 .020
Contrast
Linear 1 .008 1.43 .2975
Quadratic 1 .004 .70 .4507


Dependent Variable: Grower feed intakeKg

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
2.30 .006 .076 .68 3.33
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 4 .049 2.13 .2412
Trt 2 .035 3.03 .1580
Rep 2 .014 1.22 .3848
Error 8 0.023
Contrast
Linear 1 .027 4.67 .0968
Quad ratic 1 .008 1.39 .3030


Dependent Variable: Finisher feed intake,Kg

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
2.80 .008 .088 .77 3.16
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 4 .102 3.30 .1373
Trt 2 .041 2.65 .1854
Rep 2 .061 3.95 .1130
Error 8 0.031
Contrast
Linear 1 .002 .30 .6159
Quadratic 1 .038 5.00 .0891










TABLE XXXII. continued.

Dependent Variable: Total feed intake,Kg


Mean
2.20


MSE
.003


Root MSE R-Square
.057 .63
AOV Table


Coefficient of
2.60


Source OF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 4 .022 1.70 .3106
Trt 2 .012 1.84 .2706
Rep 2 .010 1.55 .3176
Error 8 0.003
Contrast
Linear 1 .003 .82 .4163
Quadratic 1 .009 2.87 .1656


Dependent Variable: Starter feed efficiency

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
2.11 .002 .047 .88 2.24
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 4 .067 7.47 .0385
Trt 2 .067 14.85 .0141
Rep 2 .0004 .09 .9140
Error 8 .022
Contrast
Linear 1 .062 28.02 .0061
Quadratic 1 .003 1.69 .2636


Dependent Variable: Grower feed efficiency

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
3.03 .019 .140 .58 4.62
AOV Table
Source OF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 4 .108 1.37 .3836
Trt 2 .085 2.18 .2292
Rep 2 .022 .56 .6081
Error 8 .078
Contrast
Linear 1 .073 3.73 .1258
Quadratic 1 .012 .63 .4723


Variation










TABLE XXXII. continued.

Dependent Variable: Finisher feed efficiency


Mean
3.70


MSE
.018


Root MSE
.134


R-Square
.64
AOV Table


Coefficient
3.62


of Variation


Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 4 .125 1.74 .3019
Trt 2 .093 2.59 .1896
Rep 2 .032 .89 .4786
Error 8 0.072
Contrast
Linear 1 .081 4.48 .1016
Quadratic 1 .012 .70 .4487


Dependent Variable: Total feed efficiency

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
3.11 .004 .061 .90 1.96
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 4 .137 9.13 .0273
Trt 2 .128 17.09 .0110
Rep 2 .009 1.18 .3960
Error 8 .015
Contrast
Linear 1 .112 30.06 .0054
Quadratic 1 .015 4.12 .1124



Dependent Variable: Hot Carcass WeightKg

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
73.89 73.353 8.565 .60 11.59
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 18 3869.569 2.93 .0031
Trt 2 116.842 .80 .4589
Rep 2 97.071 .66 .5223
Sex 1 1221.053 16.65 .0002
Trt*Rep 4 25.781 .09 .9857
Trt*Sex 2 947.355 6.46 .0041
Rep*Sex 2 247.413 1.69 .1999
Trt*Rep*Sex 4 327.577 1.12 .3644
Int wgt covar 1 1180.291 16.09 .0003
Error 35 2567.387
Contrast
Linear 1 115.912 1.58 .2171
Quadratic 1 .931 .01 .9109











TABLE XXXII. continued.


Dependent
Mean
2.63


Variab
MSE
.433


Source C
Model
Trt
Rep
Sex
Trt*Rep
Trt*Sex
Rep*Sex
Trt*Rep*Sex
Int wgt covar
Error
Contrast
Linear
Ouadratic


le: Intestinal tract fill
Root MSE R-Square
.658 .49
AOV Table


F
18
2
2
1
4
2
2
4
1
35


SS
14.741
1.315
.164
.378
8.475
1.219
.049
2.221
1.093
27.483


Coefficient of
25.01


F-Value
1.89
1.52
.19
.87
4.88
1.41
.06
1.28
2.52


2.97
0.06


1.289
0.025


Dependent Variable: Carcass length

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
80.852 11.202 3.347 .384 4.1297
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 18 244.456 1.21 .3039
Trt 2 20.921 .93 .4126
Rep 2 5.001 .22 .8011
Sex 1 62.867 5.61 .0235
Trt*sex 2 18.044 .81 .4550
Trt*rep 4 4.858 .11 .9888
Rep*sex 2 14.726 .66 .5245
Trt*rep*sex 6 51.238 1.14 .3023
Int wgt covar 1 84.974 7.59 .0093
Error 35 468.338
Contrast
Linear 1 9.816 0.94 .3379
Quadratic 1 9,146 0.88 .3547


Variation


PR>F
.0528
.2336
.8284
.3569
.0035
.2586
.9444
.2966
.1211


.0935
-8110


~











TABLE XXXII. continued.

Dependent Variable: Average Backfat Thickness


Mean
3.23


MSE
.143


Source OF


Model
Trt
Rep
Sex
Trt*sex
Trt* rep
Rep*sex
Trt* rep* sex
Int wgt covar
Error
Contrast
Linear
na A +-i ~


Root MSE R-Square
.378 .713
AOV Table
SS


12.401
.170
.306
2.007
2.002
5.606
1.020
1.219
.314
18.757

0.169
rn n1


Coefficient of
11.70

F-Value


4.83
.59
1.07
14.07
9.82
7.01
3.58
2.14
2.20


1.19
n nn


Variation


PR>F


.0001
.5773
.3536
.0006
.0027
.0001
.0386
.0369
.1467


.2837
nn 1


Dependent Variable: Marbling

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
14.30 27.407 5.235 .32 36.61
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 17 460.593 .99 .4910
Trt 2 20.259 .37 .6936
Rep 2 19.704 .36 .7005
Sex 1 66.667 2.43 .1276
Trt*sex 2 34.333 .63 .5403
Trt*rep 4 243.963 2.23 .0856
Rep*sex 2 32.444 .59 .5586
Trt*rep*sex 6 43.222 .39 .8114
Int wgt covar 1 74.974 6.59 .0293
Error 35 468.338
Contrast
Linear 1 0.169 .17 .6814
Quadratic 1 0.001 0.57 .4560


SS










TABLE XXXII. continued.

Dependent Variable: Loin eye area


Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
30.53 6.781 2.604 .46 8.52
AOV Table
Source OF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 17 199.112 1.73 .0843
Trt 2 61.295 4.52 .0179
Rep 2 8.343 0.62 .5463
Sex 1 20.249 3.00 .0920
Trt*rep 4 12.519 0.46 .7634
Trt*sex 2 1.773 0.13 .8779
Rep*sex 2 53.229 3.92 .0290
Trt*rep*sex 4 34.899 1.29 .2940
Error 35 237.34
Contrast
Linear 1 56.791 8.38 .0065
Quadratic 1 3.783 0.56 .4601



Dependent Variable: Warner Bratzler Shear

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
4.62 .449 .670 .41 14.51
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 17 8.219 1.07 .4123
Trt 2 1.332 1.48 .2416
Rep 2 1.097 1.22 .3076
Sex 1 .133 .30 .5899
Trt*sex 2 1.572 .18 .8379
Trt*rep 4 .159 .87 .4890
Rep*sex 2 2.748 3.05 .0596
Trt*rep*sex 6 1.178 .65 .6276
Error 36 16.198
Contrast
Linear 1 .531 1.18 .2845
Quadratic 1 .801 1.78 .1906










TABLE XXXII. continued.

Dependent Variable: Tenderness


Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
5.75 .568 .754 .22 13.09
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 17 5.892 .61 .8620
Trt 2 1.012 .89 .4196
Rep 2 .216 .19 .8280
Sex 1 .516 .91 .3471
Trt*sex 2 1.188 1.04 .3623
Trt*rep 4 1.130 .49 .7435
Rep*sex 2 .332 .29 .7488
Trt*rep*sex 6 1.515 .67 .6196
Error 36 20.473
Contrast
Linear 1 .144 .25 .6174
Quadratic 1 .867 1.53 .2248


Dependent variable: Juciness

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
5.42 .550 .741 .21 13.68
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 17 5.311 .57 .8935
Trt 2 .006 .01 .9947
Rep 2 .463 .42 .6599
Sex 1 .059 .11 .7445
Trt*sex 2 1.472 1.34 .2751
Trt*rep 4 .626 .28 .8862
Rep*sex 2 1.403 1.28 .2917
Trt*rep*sex 6 2.685 .81 .6772
Error 36 19.804
Contrast
Linear 1 .005 .01 .9218
Quadratic 1 .00 .00 .9774










TABLE XXXII. continued.

Dependent Variable: Flavor


Mean
5.95


MSE
.188


Root MSE
.433


R-Square
.23
AOV Table


Coefficient of
7.27


Variation


Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 17 1.963 .61 .8577
Trt 2 .472 1.26 .2965
Rep 2 .125 .33 .7193
Sex 1 .175 .93 .3414
Trt*sex 2 .321 1.21 .7880
Trt*rep 4 .455 .30 .3094
Rep*sex 2 .111 .30 .7459
Trt*rep*sex 6 .111 .40 .8041
Error 36 3.044
Contrast
Linear 1 .390 2.08 .1578
Quadratic 1 .081 .44 .5137


Dependent Variable: Off flavor

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
3.91 .025 .158 .46 4.01
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 17 .776 1.84 .0614
Trt 2 .030 .60 .5538
Rep 2 .106 .21 .8089
Sex 1 .066 2.64 .1130
Trt*sex 2 .315 6.35 .0044
Trt*rep 4 .134 1.35 .2720
Rep*sex 2 .113 2.28 .1164
Trt*rep*sex 6 .221 1.09 .3776
Error 36 .893
Contrast
Linear 1 .024 .97 .3316
Quadratic 1 .006 .23 .6323










TABLE XXXII. continued.

Dependent Variable: Connective tissue


Mean
5.19


MSE
.635


Root MSE R-Square
.797 .28
AOV Table


Coefficient of Variation
15.34


Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 17 8.776 .81 .6695
Trt 2 1.696 1.33 .2762
Rep 2 1.496 1.18 .3199
Sex 1 .436 .69 .4132
Trt*sex 2 .702 .55 .5805
Trt*rep 4 1.800 .71 .5917
Rep*sex 2 1.074 .85 .4378
Trt*rep*sex 6 1.572 .62 .6523
Error 36 22.883
Contrast
Linear 1 .819 1.29 .2638
Quadratic 1 .877 1.38 .2480

Dependent Variable: Fat odor

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
1.82 .149 .386 .29 21.24
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 17 2.161 .85 .6308
Trt 2 .522 1.75 .1891
Rep 2 .011 .04 .9611
Sex 1 .065 .44 .5127
Trt*sex 2 .070 .24 .7905
Trt*rep 4 .305 .51 .7290
Rep*sex 2 .857 1.43 .2435
Trt*rep*sex 6 1.186 1.32 .2435
Error 36 5.388
Contrast
Linear 1 .014 .09 .7615
Quadratic 1 .508 3.40 .0736










TABLE XXXII. continued.

Dependent Variable: Liver aluminum


Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
0.179 0.0332 .1822 .31 101.76
AOV Table
Source OF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 18 0.537 0.95 .5282
Trt 2 0.101 1.52 .2328
Rep 2 0.015 0.23 .7964
Sex 1 0.003 0.08 .7725
Trt*rep 2 0.228 1.72 .1670
Trt*sex 4 0.061 0.92 .4094
Rep*sex 2 0.034 0.51 .6072
Trt*rep*sex 6 0.095 0.71 .5880
Error 35 1.196
Contrast
Linear 1 0.089 2.68 .1103
Quadratic 1 0,011 0.36 .5545


Dependent Variable: Liver cadmium

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
0.062 0.001 .0319 .56 51.15
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 18 0.047 2.70 .0061
Trt 2 0.005 2.58 .0895
Rep 2 0.004 1.81 .1781
Sex 1 0.002 2.21 .1458
Trt*rep 2 0.011 2.69 .0467
Trt*sex 4 0.003 1.48 .2421
Rep*sex 2 0.013 6.37 .0043
Trt*rep*sex 6 0.009 2.11 .1002
Error 35 0.037
Contrast
Linear 1 0.0001 .14 .7086
Quadratic 1 0.0051 5.02 .0312










TABLE XXXII. continued.

Dependent Variable: Liver chromium


Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
0.199 0.038 .1944 .20 97.951
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 18 0.342 0.53 .9175
Trt 2 0.016 0.21 .8138
Rep 2 0.100 1.33 .2776
Sex 1 0.038 1.02 .3203
Trt*rep 2 0.014 0.10 .9832
Trt*sex 4 0.004 0.06 .9434
Rep*sex 2 0.005 0.07 .9333
Trt*rep*sex 6 0.163 1.08 .3811
Error 35 1.361
Contrast
Linear 1 0.0032 0.08 .7724
Quadratic 1 0.0125 0.33 .5695


Dependent Variable: Liver lead

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
0.365 0.251 .5010 .39 137.21
AOV Table
Source DF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 18 5.821 1.36 .2117
Trt 2 0.243 0.48 .6206
Rep 2 0.064 0.13 .8802
Sex 1 0.059 0.23 .6317
Trt*rep 2 1.952 1.94 .1242
Trt*sex 4 0.285 0.57 .5722
Rep*sex 2 1.636 3.26 .0501
Trt*rep*sex 6 1.582 1.58 .2017
Error 35 9.039
Contrast
Linear 1 0.00001 0.00 .9947
Quadratic 1 0,2427 0.97 .3321










TABLE XXXII. continued.

Dependent Variable: Liver mercury

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square
0.073 0.0192 .1388 .24
AOV Table


Coefficient of Variation
190.01


Source DF SS F-Yalue PR>F
Model 18 0.222 0.68 .8042
Trt 2 0.011 0.30 .7451
Rep 2 0.006 0.16 .8551
Sex 1 0.023 1.19 .2830
Trt*rep 2 0.120 1.56 .2067
Trt*sex 4 0.002 0.06 .9410
Rep*sex 2 0.006 0.17 .8461
Trt*rep*sex 6 0.052 0.68 .6110
Error 35 0.694
Contrast
Linear 1 0.0100 0.52 .4759
Ouadratic 1 0.0013 0.07 .7944


Dependent Variable: Liver nickel

Mean MSE Root MSE R-Square Coefficient of Variation
0.139 0.041 .2013 .33 144.58
AOV Table
Source OF SS F-Value PR>F
Model 18 0.705 1.02 .4586
Trt 2 0.132 1.63 .2104
Rep 2 0.101 1.24 .3004
Sex 1 0.003 0.07 .7988
Trt*rep 2 0.279 1.72 .1670
Trt*sex 4 0.090 1.11 .3400
Rep*sex 2 0.034 0.42 .6596
Trt*rep*sex 6 0.066 0.41 .8011
Error 35 1.459
Contrast
Linear 1 0.1320 3.26 .0795
Quadratic 1 0.0000 0.00 .9849





88



TABLE XXXIII. REGRESSION EQUATIONS FOR VARIABLES IN EXPERIMENT 4 (260D).

Component Equation R2 SEa

Dry Matter 92.05 .64*(Algae) 2 .93 .84
Organic Matter 95.04 .53*(Algae) .01*(Algae)2 .92 .66
Gross Energy 94.02 .73*(Algae) .014*(Algae .94 .76
Crude Protein 93.84 2.64*(Algae) .03*(Algae) .96 1.75
Neutral Detergent Fiber 24.48 + 1.23*(Algae) .59 4.25
Acid Detergent Fiber 4.16 + 3.34*(Algae) 2 .62 4.58
Digestible energy 3.61 .031*(Algae) .0007(Algae) .96 .04
Metabolizable Energy 3.09 .031*(Algae) .21 .05
Nitrogen retention 73.25 .023*(Algae) .84 .04

Standard error of the mean.














LITERATURE CITED


AMSA. 1978. Guidelines for cookery and sensory evaluation of meat.
American Meat Science Association. Chicago, IL.

AOAC. 1980. Official Methods of Analysis (13th Ed.). Association of
Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC.

Asplund, J. M. and W. H. Pfander. 1973. Production of single-cell
protein from solid wastes. In: Alternative Sources of Protein
for Animal Production. National Academy of Science. Washington, DC

Beasley, V. R., R. W. Coppock, J. Simon, R. Ely, W. B. Buck and R. A.
Corley. 1983. Apparent blue-green algae poisoning in swine
subsequent to ingestion of a bloom dominated by Anabaena
spiroides. J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. 182:413.

Becker, W. E., L. V. Venkataraman, and P. M. Khanum. 1976.
Digestibility coefficient and biological value of the proteins
of the alga Scenedesmus acutus processed by different methods.
Nutr. Rep. Int. 14:457.

Bourges, H., A. Sotomayor, E. Mendoza, and A. Chavez. 1971.
Utilization of algae Spirulina as a protein source. Nutr.
Rep. Int. 4:31.

Boyd, C. E. 1973. Amino acid composition of freshwater algae.
Arch. Hydrobiol. 72:1.

Calvert, C. C. 1974. Animal wastes as a substrate for protein
production. Fed. Proc. 33:1938.

Cheeke, P. R., E. Gasper, L. Boersma, and J. E. Oldfield. 1977.
Nutritional evaluation with rats of algae (Chlorella)
grown on swine manure. Nutr. Rep. Int. 16:579.

Chung, Po, W. G. Pond, J. M. Kingsbury, E. F. Walker, Jr. and L.
Krook. 1978. Production and nutritive value of Arthrospira
platensis, spiral blue-green algae grown on swine wastes.
J. Anim. Sci. 47:319.

Church, D. C. 1978. Livestock Feeds and Feeding. 0 & B Books Inc.,
Corvalis, OR.

Clement, G. 1974. Producing Spirulina with C02. In: S. R.
Tannenbaum and D. Wang (Eds.) Single-Cell Protein. MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA. pp. 467-474.










Clement, G., C. Giddey, and R. Menzi. 1967. Amino acid compo-
sition and nutritive value of the algae Spirulina maxima.
J. Sci. Food Agr. 19:497.

Combs, G. E. and H. D. Wallace. 1970. Non-protein nitrogen for
growing-finishing swine. Animal Science research report No.
AN70-12. University of Florida, Gainesville.

Combs, G. E. and H. D. Wallace. 1973. Utilization of Non-protein
nitrogen by young swine. Animal Science research report No.
AL73-2. University of Florida, Gainesville.

Combs, G. E. and H. D. Wallace. 1974. Source and level of Non-protein
nitrogen for starter and fishing swine diets. Animal Science
research report No. AL-1974-3. University of Florida, Gainesville.

Cook, B. B. 1962. The nutritive value of waste-grown algae.
Amer. J. Pub. Health, 52:243.

Cook, B. B., E. W. Lau, and B. M. Bailey. 1963. The protein quality
of waste-grown green algae; Quality of protein in mixtures of
algae nonfat powdered milk and cereals. J. Nutr. 81:23.

Dam, R., L. Sunghee, P. C. Fry, and H. Fox. 1965. Utilization of
algae as a protein source for humans. J. Nutr. 86:376.

Davies, M. G. and A. J. Thomas. 1973. An investigation of hydrolytic
techniques for the amino acid analysis of foodstuffs. J. Sci. Fd.
Agric. 24:1525.

De Franca, F. P., M. P. D. Gomes, M. T. G. Alvernaz, and M. S. Silva
Filho. 1978. Influence of temperature on the production
of Chlorella homosphaera biomass. Rev. Lat. Amer. Microbiol.
20:229.

Durand-Chastel, H. and G. Clement. 1972. Spirulina algae: Food
for tomorrow. Proc. 9th Int. Congr. Nutr., Mexico, 1972, 3:85.

Enebo, L. 1970. Single Cell Protein. In: A. E. Bender and R.
Khilberg (Eds.) Evaluation of Novel Protein Products. pp.
93-103. Pergamon press., Oxford.

Erchul, B. A. F. and D. L. Isenberg. 1968. Protein quality of
various algal biomasses produced by a water reclamation
pilot plant. J. Nutr. 95:374.

Fick, K. R., L. R. McDowell, P. H. Miles, N. S. Wilkinson, J. D. Funk,
and J. H. Conrad. 1979. Methods of mineral analysis for plant and
animal tissues. Animal Science Deptartment University of Florida,
Gainesville.

Fink, H., and E. Herold. 1956. Uber die EiweiBqualitat einzelliger
Grunalgen und ihre Lebernekrose verhutende Wirkung. Z. Physiol.
Chem. 305:182.










Fink, H., and E. Herold. 1957. Uber die EiweiBqualitat einzelliger
Grunalgen und ihre Lebernekrose verhutende Wirkung. Z. Physiol.
Chem. 307:202.
Fisher, A. W., Jr. 1953. Nutritional value of microscopic algae.
In: John S. Burlew (Ed.) Algae production from laboratory to
pilot plant. Carnegie Institute. Washington, DC. pp. 303-310.

Fulhage, C. 1972. Algal growth potential of swine waste. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.

Furst, P. T. 1978. SDirulina. Nature 3:60.

Gallaher, R. N., C. 0. Weldon, and J. G. Futral. 1975. An aluminum
block digester for plant and soil analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
Proc. 32:803.

Garrett, M. K., J. J. Strain, and M. D. B. Allen. 1976. Composition
of the product of algal culture in the liquid phase of animal
slurry. J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 27:603.

Golueke, C. G. and W. J. Oswald. 1965. Harvesting and processing
sewage-grown planktonic algae. J. Water Poll. Cont. Fed.
37(4):471.

Grau, C. R. and N. W. Klein. 1957. Sewage grown algae as a feedstuff
for chicks. Poultry Sci. 36:1046.

Hambleton, L. G. 1977. Semiautomated method for simultaneous
determination of phosphorus, calcium and crude protein in animal
feeds. J. A. 0. A. C. 60:845.

Hintz, H. F. and H. Heitman, Jr. 1967. Sewage-grown algae as a
protein supplement for swine. Anim. Prod. 9:135.

Hintz, H. F., H. Heitman, Jr., W. C. Weir, D. T. Torrel, and J. H.
Mezer. 1966. Nutritive value of algae grown on sewage. J. Anim.
Sci. 25:675.

Jones, B. N., S. Paabo, and S. Stein. 1981. Amino acid analysis and
enzymatic sequence determination of peptides by an improved
o-phthaldaldehyde pre-column labeling procedure. J. Liquid
Chromatography 4:565.

Kharatyan, S. G. 1978. Microbes as food for humans. Ann. Rev.
Microbiol. 32:301.

Khilberg, R. 1972. The microbe as a source of food. Ann. Rev.
Microbiol. 26:427.

Lee, B. Y. 1979. The utilization of pig wastewater for algal
protein recovery in high rate ponds. UNDP/FAO Project SIN
74/006 on Animal Waste Management and Utilization. Ministry
of National Development, Republic of Singapore.









Leone, D. E. 1969. Growth of Chlorella pyrenoidasa 71105 in
activated sludge waste effluent. J. Water Poll. Cont. Fed.
41(1):51.

Leveille, G. A., H. E. Sauberlich, and J. W. Shockley. 1962. Protein
value and amino acid deficiencies of various algae for growth
of rats and chicks. J. Nutr. 76:423.

Lincoln, E. P. 1976. Low-cost retrieval of microalgae. First
International Congress on Engineering and Food. Boston, MA.
pp. 1-7.

Lincoln, E. P. 1977. Closing the nitrogen cycle in animal
production. Non-conventional proteins and foods. NSF-RA-770278.
pp. 173-182.

Lincoln, E. P. and W. N. Carmichael. 1980. Preliminary tests for
toxicity of the cyanobacterium Synechocvstis s!. Proceedings of
the International Conference on the Water Environment: Algal
toxins and health. Wright State University. Dayton, OH.

Lincoln, E. P. and D. T. Hill. 1978. An integrated microalgae
system. First International Symposium on Production and Uses of
Micro-algae Biomass. Acco, Israel.

Lincoln, E. P., D. T. Hill, and R. A. Nordstedt. 1977. Microalgae
as a means of recycling animal wastes. Annual Meeting Amer.
Soc. Ag. Eng. Paper No. 77-5026. North Carolina State University,
Raleigh.

Lipstein, B. and S. Hurwitz. 1980. The nutritional value of algae
for poultry. Dried Chlorella in broiler diets. Brit. Poul. Sci.
21:9.

Lubitz, J. A. 1963. The protein quality, digestibility and compo-
sition of algae Chlorella 71105. J. Food Sci. 28:229.

McDowell, M. E., and G. A. Leveille. 1963. Feeding experiments
with algae. Fed. Proc. 22:1431.

Moore, J. E. and G. 0. Mott. 1974. Recovery of residual organic
matter from in vitro digestion of forages. J. Dairy Sci. 57:1258.

NRC. 1979. Nutrient requirements of Domestic Animals, No. 2. Nutrient
Requirements of Swine. Eighth Revised Ed. National Academy of
Science-National Research Council. Washington, DC.

Omstedt, P. and A. von der Decken. 1974. Effect of processing
on the nutritive value of Sarcharomvces cerevisiae Scendesmus
obliquus, and Spirulina platensis measured by protein synthesis
in vitro in rat skeletal muscle. In: S. R. Tannenbaum and D.
Wang (Eds.) Single-cell protein II. MIT Press., Cambridge,
pp. 553-563.










Oswald, W. J. 1969. Current status of microalgae from wastes.
Chem. Eng. Prog. Sym. Ser. 65(93):87.

Oswald, W. J. and C. G. Gouleke. 1968. Large scale production of
algae. In: R. I. Mateles and S. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.) Single-
cell Protein. MIT Press., Cambridge pp. 271-305.

Parr Instrument Co. 1960. Oxygen bomb calorimetry and combustion
methods, Technical Manual No. 130. Parr Instrument Company, Moline.

Pipes, W. 0. and H. B. Gotaas. 1960. Utilization of organic matter
by Chlorella grown in sewage. Appl. Microbiol. 8:163.

Powell, R. C., E. M. Nevels, and M. E. McDowell. 1961. Algae feeding
in humans. J. Nutr. 75:7.

Shelef, G., R. Moraine, and G. Oron. 1978. Animal proteins
and water for irrigation from algal ponds. Sherman Environ-
mental Engineering Research Center Technion. Haifa, Israel.

Steel R. G. D. and J. H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and Procedures of
Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.

Subbulakshmi, G., W. E. Becker, and L. V. Venkataraman. 1976. Effect
of processing on the nutrient content of the green alga
Scenedesmus acutus. Nutr. Rep. Int. 14:581.

Sunghee, K. L., H. M. Fox, C. Kies, and R. Dam. 1967. The supple-
mentary value of algae protein in human diets. J. Nutr. 92:281.

USDA. 1981. Guidelines for Swine Improvement Programs. Science and
Education Administratiowi Program Aid 1157.

Valdivia, R., C. B. Ammerman, P. R. Henry, J. P. Feaster, and C. J.
Wilcox. 1982. Effect of dietary aluminum and phosphorus on
performance, phosphorus utilization and tissue mineral composition
in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 55:402.

Van Soest, P. J., 1975. Physico-chemical aspects of fiber digestion.
Proc. IV Internatl. Sym. Ruminant Physiology. I. W. McDonald and
A. C. I. Warner (Eds.) pp. 352-365.

Van Soest, P. J. and R. H. Wine. 1967. Use of detergents in the
analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell wall
constituents. J. Ass. Off. Agric. Chem. 50:50.

Wehrbein, G. F., P. E. Vipperman, Jr., E. R. Peo, Jr., and P. J.
Cunningham. 1970. Diammonium citrate and diammonium phosphate as
sources of dietary nitrogen for growing-finishing swine. J. Anim.
Sci. 31:327.





94



Yannai, S., S. Mokady, K. Sachs, B. Kantorowitz, and Z. Berk.
1979. Secondary toxicology and contaminants of algae grown
on wastewater. Nutr. Rep. Int. 19:391.


Yap, T. N., J. F. Wu, W. G. Pond, and L. Krook. 1982.
of feeding SDirulina maxima, Arthrospira platensis
sp. to pigs weaned to a dry diet at 4 to 8 days of
Rep. Int. 25:543.


Feasibility
or Chlorella
age. Nutr.




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EUSQ2ZW62_NNEKO8 INGEST_TIME 2012-02-17T16:33:49Z PACKAGE AA00003807_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES