Department of Animal Science
Date of this Version
January 2004
Abstract
This experiment was conducted to compare the nutritional value, measured by digestible and metabolizable energy, and nitrogen digestibility in young pigs fed either corn rootworm protected test corn (event MON 863, RX740CRW) or a genetically similar non-transgenic control corn (RX740). The experiment used 12 barrows with an initial body weight of 74.5 lb. The pigs were housed individually in stainless steel metabolism crates and were randomly allotted to one of two corn treatments, either corn rootworm protected corn or non-transgenic control corn. Diets were formulated to contain 97.5% of test or control corn and 2.5% minerals and vitamins. The duration of the experiment was 14 days, which included a seven-day adaptation period followed by a seven-day total fecal and urine collection period. Feed intake was based on initial body weight and pigs had ad libitum access to water. Dry-matter intakes (2.38 versus 2.36 lb/d) and apparent dry matter digestibility (87.78 and 87.71%) were similar (P > 0.10) between the corn rootworm protected corn and nontransgenic control corn, respectively. The apparent digestible energy (1.78 versus 1.79 Mcal/lb) and the apparent metabolizable energy (1.73 versus 1.74 Mcal/lb) were similar (P > 0.10) between the corn rootworm protected corn and non-transgenic corn, respectively. The nitrogen balance data indicated no differences (P > 0.10) between the corn rootworm protected corn and non-transgenic control corn for nitrogen intake (0.04 versus 0.04 lb/d), nitrogen digested (0.03 versus 0.03 lb/d), nitrogen retained (0.01 versus 0.01 lb/d), or nitrogen digestibility (77.30 versus 78.30%), respectively. The results of this experiment indicate that energy and nitrogen utilization are similar between diets containing either the corn rootworm protected corn or non-transgenic control corn when fed to young pigs. Thus, this transgenic corn can be fed to young pigs without negatively affecting nitrogen or energy digestibility.
Comments
Published in 2004 Nebraska Swine Report, compiled by Duane Reese; University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC 04-219-A. Prepared by the staff in Animal Science and cooperating Departments for use in Extension, Teaching and Research programs. Cooperative Extension Division, Agricultural Research Division, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska–Lincoln. http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/sendIt/ec219.pdf