Native Pig Raising Using Madre de Agua (Trichantera gigantea) as an Alternative Cheap Feed Source / Dr. Marivic de Vera

Compiled by:
Dr. Marivic B. Mapesos-de Vera
Supervising Agriculturist
Bureau of Animal Industry-
National Swine and Poultry Research and Development Center
(NSPRDC)
Km 101 Brgy. Lagalag Tiaong, Quezon, Philippines
Raising Native Pig using
Madre de Agua (Trichantera gigantea)
as an Alternative Cheap Feed Source

National Swine and Poultry Research and Development Center
(NSPRDC)
Entrance road
Administration Building Road going to the farm
Entrance gate with the Guard House

Trichantera gigantea
(Madre de Agua)
Photo taken at the National Swine and Poultry Research and Development Center (NSPRDC) Tiaong, Quezon 2017

Taxonomy
Family: Acanthaceae,
Subfamily: Acanthoideae,
Tribe: Trichanthereae
Genera: Trichantera species: Trichantera gigantea

Common names:
• Aro blanco, naceder, rompebarriga (Leonard 1951)
• Nacedero (Tolima)
• Quiebrabarrigo (Antioquia)
• Cajeto (Ocana)
• Fune, Madre de Agua (Villavicencio) (Columbia)
• Suiban, Cenicero (Bolivia)
• Tuno (Guatemala)
• Naranjillo (Venezuela)
• Palo de Agua (Panama)
• Beque, Pau Santo (Brasil) (Perez-Arbelaez 1990)
• Trichantera gigantea, Madre de Agua (Philippines)

(Madre de Agua)
Trichantera gigantea is a tree that is native to the Andean
foothills in Columbia
It is not a legume, but its vigorous re-growth even with
repeated cutting and without fertilizer applications
indicates that nitrogen fixation by Mycorrhiza or other
organisms may take place in the toot zone

a fodder tree
easily established from cuttings
leaves and green stems can be harvested some 8 to 9
months after planting and subsequently at intervals of two
to four months

grows well in acid (pH 4.5) and low fertility but well
drained soils
appears to be more palatable to pigs and rabbits compared
to small ruminants (Rosales 1997).

 first described by Mutis in 1779,
who noted the hairy anthers
 1801, Humboklt and Bonpland
thought that this was a species of
the genus Ruellia andclassified it
as Ruellia gigantea
Photo courtesy of Engr. Edelissa Ramos and Mr. Poquiz, Tiaong, Quezon Philippines (2014)

1817, Kunt suggested the creation of the genus
Trichantera (Trich hair, anthera anther)
1847, Nees, based on the early descriptions, named the
genus Trichantera (Perez-Arbelaez 1990)

Description
 Shrubs or trees (sometimes bushy
and bearing adventitious roots)
up to 5 m high (a height of 15 m with
a trunk diameter of 25 cm has been
reported from Colombia
(Record and Hess 1972),
 top rounded; branches quadrate,
the angles rounded, the tips
minutely brown-tomentose;
lenticels prominent;
Photo courtesy of Engr. Edelissa Ramos and Mr. Poquiz, Tiaong, Quezon Philippines (2014)

leaf blades ovate to oblong, up to 26 cm long and 14 cm
wide; petioles 1 to 5 cm long; mature seed 1 to 4 in each
capsule (Leonard 1951)
Its wood has about the consistency of Red Maple
Photo taken at the National Organic Agriculture Program (NOAP) nursery, NSPRDC headed by Ms. Fe Bien Garcia, May 2017

The advantage of this tree is that the leaves are consumed
readily by pigs, rabbits and chickens
Trichantera gigantea has adapted well to different
ecological zones in Vietnam, the leaves are rich in protein
and are of high digestibility (Keir et al., 1977)
It grows better under partial shade than in full sunlight
(Nguyen Thi Hong Nhan et al., 1996).

as medicinal plant to cure colic and hernia in horses,
retained placenta in cows and intestinal obstructions in
domestic animals (Perez-Arbelaez 1990; Vasquez 1987)
Medicinal properties have been also attributed to it
green stems are used to cure nephritis and its roots as a
blood tonic.

sprouts are used in maize porridge for human
consumption (Vasquez 1987)
used as a lactogenic drink for nursing mothers (Ruiz
1992).
used as a fodder plant and as a live fence, for shade and
for protection of water springs (Perez-Arbelaez; Devis
1988; Gowda 1990)

In Panama, McDade (1983), by bagging the flowers prior
to anthesis, demonstrated that the flowers do not self-
pollinate as none of the stigma of bagged flowers had any
pollen grains
It has been reported that seeds do not germinate or are
difficult to germinate (Acero 1985; Murgueitio 1989;
Gowda 1990)
The mature stems, close to the ground, have the capability
to form aerial roots that, when in contact with the soil,
give rise to a new plant (Gomez and Murgueition 1991)

The propagation of this species by small scale farmers has
been carried out using stakes, as these are easy to grow
and it avoids the problems of scarcity of seeds and
difficulty of germination (Gowda 1990)
The greatest percentage germination (95%) in the tree
nursery has been found using sticks 4 cm diameter and 50
cm long (Acero 1985)
In other experiments, a 92% germination was found using
sticks from 2.2 to 2.8 cm diameter and 20 cm long, with a
minimum of 2 leaf buds

The sticks should be obtained from the basal part of the
young stems of the tree and kept in a humid and shaded
place for one day and then planted in a substrate made of
soil, sand and organic matter in proportions 5:1:2
 The first leaves appear 27-29 days after planting and the
trees are transplanted to the fields 50 days after that
(Jaramillo and River 1991; Acero 1985).

Harvesting and Foliage Production

First harvest can be made when the trees are 8 to 10
months old, giving production of foliage of 15.6 and
16.74 tonnes/ha (fresh matter basis) respectively at a
density of 40,000 plants/ha (0.5 x 0.5 m spacing)
(Jaramillo and River 1991)
Trichantera was harvested every three months, yielding 17
tons/ha per cutting (0.75 x 0.75 m spacing) (Gomez and
Murgueitio 1991).

Planted as a living fence, Trichantera can yield 9.2
tonnes/year of fresh foliage per linear km harvested every
three months (1 x 1 m spacing) (CIPAV 1996)
According to CIPAV (1996), the ideal height at cutting is
1.0 m. in regions where the temperature is high and
precipitation low, better results are achieved by cutting at
a height 1.3 to 1.5 m.
Its vigorous re-growth, even with repeated cutting and
without fertilizer applications, indicate that nitrogen
fixation could occur in the root zone either through the
action of mycorrhiza or other organisms (Preston 1992)

Table 1. The chemical composition of the leaves and stems of Trichantera gigantea

thin stems are also consumed by the animals
crude protein of the leaves from 15 to 22% and apparently
most of this is true proteins
calcium content has been found to be particularly high
compared to other fodder trees (Rosales and Galindo
1987; Rosales et al 1992).

This can be explained by the presence of cystoliths in the
leaves
This can explain the use that the small scale farmers in
Colombia make of Trichantera gigantea as a lactogenic
drink and suggests a good potential for feeding lactating
animals.

Table 2. Chemical composition (g/kg) of Trichantera gigantea (on a dry matter
basis)
Source: Rosales 1996

In a qualitative screening test (biochemical preliminary
test) for anti-nutritional compounds, no alkaloids or
tannins were found in Trichantera and the saponin and
steroid contents were low (Rosales and Galindo 1987)
In other, more precise tests, the contents of total phenols
and steroids were found to be 450 and 6.2 ppm,
respectively (Rosales et al 1989).
The great variation in its phenol content, from 450 to 50,
288 ppm could be one reason for the apparent variation in
its nutritional value

Analysis of its carbohydrate fraction revealed that this
plant had a high content of water soluble carbohydrates,
total and reducing sugars when compared with other
fodder trees and shrubs
It also showed a surprisingly high amount of starch and its
neutral detergent fibre was found to be relatively low
The large amounts of non-structural and storage
carbohydrates, combined with the low levels of structural
carbohydrates, may explain the good biological results
found with monogastrics

The protein in the leaves has a good amino acid balance
as illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3. Amino acids in leaves of Trichantera gigantea.
The leaves were from plants with four months growth kept under 3 different environmental conditions.

Locally
Trichantera gigantea is known as Madre
de Agua and it was introduced by the
Department of Agriculture through the
Bureau of Animal Industry
(Research Division and
National Swine and Poultry Research
and Development Center)

Easy to propagate and with
high yield
Forage with high protein and
calcium content
Palatable to pigs and other
animals
Can be given fresh and dry
Photos taken from NSPRDC files

Propagation
• done through Cuttings
harvested at eight (8) months
to one (1) year
•Cut it in a slant position
•Cuttings measuring 6-8
inches, with two (2) nodes
(ideal planting materials)
Photo taken at the NOAP nursery, NSPRDC May 2017

• Cuttings can be grown in a
plastic bag/polybag
(10 inches x 6 inches)
•Allow to grow until three (3)
monthsPhoto taken at the NOAP nursery, NSPRDC May 2017
Photo taken at the NOAP nursery, NSPRDC May 2017 Photo taken at the NOAP nursery, NSPRDC May 2017

• Then, it can be transferred to
the fields
•Cuttings can also be planted
directly to the fieldsPhoto taken at the NOAP nursery, NSPRDC May 2017

• Cuttings at about 4-6months
and can grow until 2 years
and more……
•Flowers appears when the
fodder are not trimmed for
almost a yearPhoto taken at the NOAP nursery, NSPRDC May 2017

• Cuttings can also be grown
in a plastic bottle with water
(water-based)
• One node must be deep in
the water

Selling Price of Cuttings:
Cuttings in Sticks – P 10.00/pc
Sack of cuttings in sticks – approx. 60 pcs –
P 600.00/sack
Cuttings in a polybag – ranging from
P 15.00 – 20.00/pc.
Photos taken at the National Swine and Poultry Research and Development Center (NSPRDC) Tiaong, Quezon 2017

Maintenance of Forage/Plant and Range area
(as of March 20, 2017)
Forage /Plant Land Area Quantity/ Pcs.
Banana 301.8 sqm 300
Trichantera gigantea 318 sqm 700
Gabi 301.8 sqm 2000
Cassava 301.8 sqm 77
Adapted from the paper presented during the10th
R&D Program Team Meeting at Marinduque State College, April 9-12, 2017

Average Daily Consumption of Trichantera leaves of
Quezon Native Pig (Gilts)
Replicate CONSUMPTION, Kg ADFC/hd,kg
AM PM
1 .91 1.00 1.91
2 .89 1.00 1.89
3 .94 1.00 1.94
4 .89 1.00 1.89
Average
.91 1.00 1.91
•Use fresh trichantera leaves
•2 kg fresh trichantera per day/hd
• 1.3kg mixed feeds per day / hd
Adapted from the paper presented during the 10th

TRICHANTERA GIGANTEA
(MADRE DE AGUA)
• land area : 318 sqm.
• quantity : 650 pcs
• observations:
•Direct planting of 1 meter
height
• watering is needed during dry
season
•banana plant can provided
shed
• pig manure are good fertilizer
Adapted from the paper presented during the 10th

TRICHANTERA GIGANTEA
AS PARTIAL REPLACEMENT TO
COMMERCIAL FEEDS FOR
GROWING-FINISHING PIGS
A.M. Samiano, R. E. Rivera, S.G. Raymundo,
H. F. Avilla and F.A. Moog

1. To determine the performance of growing-finishing pigs
fed with partial replacement of fresh Trichantera
gigantea leaves in commercial ration;
2. To evaluate the meat and carcass quality of pigs fed fresh
T. gigantea leaves;
3. To determine the economics of partially replacing
commercial feeds with T. gigantea leaves
OBJECTIVES

Three (3) trials conducted between August 2003 and June
2005
METHODOLOGY
DURATION & SITE

Properly identified, vaccinated, dewormed, and randomly
assigned to dietary treatments as follows:
EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS
TREATMENT NO. OF ANIMALS
Commercial Ration 10
20% Replacement 10
30% Replacement 10

In between pig pens
In between coconut trees
T. gigantea fodder tree before and after harvest

RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
Nutrient
T. gigantea Starter Mash Grower Mash Finisher
Mash
Protein 15.64 18.05 16.8 15.48
Fiber 13.4 4.9 6.9 7.27
Moisture 9.01 9.25 9.3 9.94
Ash 18.87 5.8 7.5 8.14
NFE 38.37 56.2 52.4 51.35
Fats 3.61 5.8 7.1 7.88
Table 1. Proximate Analysis

Table 2. Performance of growing-finishing pigs fed commercial feeds with
partial replacement of T. gigantea
Parameters Commercial Ration 20% Replacement 30% Replacement
No. of animals 10 10 10
Ave. initial weigh t(kg.) 22.3 21.8 22.2
Ave. final wt (kg.) 113.5 98.8 89.1
Feeding days 124 124 124
Ave. total wt. gain (kg.) 91.2 77.1 66.9
Ave. daily gain (kg.) .735 .621 .540
Feed consumed (kg)
Commercial ration , (kg) 236 189 165
T. gigantea (fresh leaves) , kg 235 355
FCR 2.59 2.45 2.46
Feed cost (P) 3,540 2,835 2,475
Piglet cost ( P) 2,684 2,644 2,676
Sale (P) 9,647 8,406 7,573
Return above feed cost (P) 3,423 2,927 2,422
Piglet Cost = Php 1,700 + Php 80 in excess of 10kkg
Livewieght Cost/kg = Php 85
Average feed cost/kg = Php 15

Table 3. Carcass Evaluation
Parameters
Treatment
Commercial Ration 20% Replacement
30%
Replacement
Liveweight (kg) 114 100 102
Carcass weight (kg)
Head on 86.5 80 80
Head off 79.6 73.6 73.8
Dressing % (hd on) 76 75.5 78
Carcass length (in) 31 32 31
Backfat thickness (in) 0.83 0.92 1.00
Loin eye area (sq.in) 6.16 7.73 6.32
% yield(lean,meat, (head on) 53.12 56.81 53.81
% lean 59.44 60.2 55.1
% fat 15.59 9.34 11.33
% bone 8.28 9.21 8.51
% skin 4.46 4.17 3.78

Table 4. Sensory Evaluation
Sensory Attributes
Treatment
Commercial
Ration
20%
Replacement
30%
Replacement
Flavor 2.6 2.9 3.4
Juiciness 3.3 3.6 3.7
Tenderness 6.4 6.8 6.5
General acceptability 6.2 6.5 6.5

CONCLUSION
• Traditional swine production system is almost entirely dependent
on grain based ration which competes for human food requirements.
Dependency on imported feed ingredients could be shifted towards
replacement of available local feed resources such as fodder trees
with high nutritive value.
• Partial replacement of commercial feeds with T. gigantea showed
comparable results in terms of weight gain, meat quality and economic
returns with pork produced that are generally acceptable.
• Introduction of T. gigantea as feed for swine has a big potential for
inclusion in integrated animal production system in terms of feed
usage.

DR. MARIVIC B. MAPESOS-DE VERA, DR. RENE C. SANTIAGO,
DR. FLOMELLA A. CAGUICLA, and RICO C. PANALIGAN
Bureau of Animal Industry
Utilization of
as feed supplement for
poultry and swine

• cost of feeds
• utilize cheap and locally available feedstuff
• indigenous breeds of pigs can handle fibrous
feeds than exotic breeds
RATIONALE

SUPPLEMENT – is a feed or a feed mixture
used with another to improve the nutritive
balance or performance of the total to be:
(1)fed undiluted as a supplement to other
feeds, or
(2)offered as free choice with other parts of
the ration separately available, or
(3)further diluted and mixed to produce a
completed feed

FORAGE and ROUGHAGE – feeds that are
high in fiber (MT 18%) and low in
digestible energy because their water
content is high

Concentration of nutrients in Roughage
where roughage is the entire ration
digestion of the principal energy-producing
component of roughage is not carried by the
animals directly

Rather, it is done by symbiotic
microorganisms in the caecum, whose
activity in turn depends in part on how
“well-fed” they are by the host animal’s diet
As digestion rate is reduced, voluntary
roughage intake is reduced

Useful energy of the dry matter of a
roughage may decline 40% from fresh
pasturage to the mature plant, largely
because the rate of digestion is suppressed
by progressive lignification of the cellulose
with advancing maturity

Significance of energy of Roughage
The major factor in the use of roughages as
feeds for animals is how much roughage the
animal will consume relative to its energy
needs
When less roughage is eaten than is
necessary to meet energy requirements,
meal feeding will be called for

“The highest possible use of forage (pasture,
ordinary hay, dehydrated hay, and grass
silage) will depend on the concentration
ratio of this forage in relation to the
concentration ratio of other feeds (as
concentrates)”
Dr. Folke Jarl of the National Animal Experiment Station, Royal
Agricultural College at Ultima, Uppsola, Sweden

• Energy – is the major nutritional need. At
least 80% of the total feed intake of most
animals consists of sources of calories
• Feed intake – is regulated according need;
animals eat to satisfy their energy
requirements

“Typical diet” for livestock will contain:
protein – 10-20%
energy sources – 80-90%
minerals- 3-4 %
vitamins – trace
salt – 0.25-0.5%

Simple Nonruminants (Monogastric)
-have a pouchlike, noncompartmentalized
stomach and do not depend much upon
microbial digestion in any part of the gut
Digestion with the aid of digestive enzymes
(GIT)
Small intestine – major site of digestion and
absorption

Large intestines – absorption of water, some
bacterial fermentation, and formation of the
feces
Omnivores – such as swine, tend to have a
long small intestine and somewhat enlarged
hindgut (cecum, colon, and rectum) with a
much more significant microbial population
and some fiber digestion

• To determine the effect of
supplementing concentrate feed with T.
gigantea (TG) or sweet potato (SP) on
the performance of growing-finishing
native pigs.
GENERAL OBJECTIVE

Expected Output
come up with quantitative reduction in
feed costs due to the supplemental
nutrients
pigment contribution coming from green
roughages which are easily grown in rural
areas

Study 3 Performance of Native Pigs fed diets
supplemented with Trichantera
gigantea (TG) or Sweet Potato (SP)

Specific Objective
supplementing concentrate feeds with
fresh Trichantera gigantea or sweet
potato on the rate of growth, feed
consumption and feed efficiency

Trichantera gigantea or sweet potato
on the dressing percentage and carcass
quality of finished pigs (BFT and
LEA) and

• To evaluate the economic benefits of
Trichantera gigantea or sweet potato

• Fifteen (15) native pigs were used and
randomly distributed to 15 pens
• Three (3) dietary treatments were
randomly assigned to 15 pens following
CRD
METHODOLOGY

• Each treatment were replicated five
times
• The pigs were raised for 2 phases
namely:
growing
finishing stage

Treatment 1 Basal diets
Photo taken at the BAI-NSPRDC, 2013

Treatment 2 Concentrate feed supplemented
with TG (leaves and soft stalk)

Treatment 3 Concentrate feed supplemented
with SP (leaves and vines)
`

• Fresh green roughage were fed ad lib
for the first 3 hours in the morning and
then in the afternoon, thereafter, they
were fed with their respective
concentrate feeds

• Medium Nutrient Density (HND) diets for
Hog Grower and Low Nutrient Density
(LND) diets for Hog Finisher
• Mixing of diets
• Fresh TG leaves and stalk and SP leaves
and vines

• The pigs were fed with their respective
grower diets from 90-120 days and
finisher diets from 120-160 days

Table 1. Ingredients used in the experiment.
INGREDIENTS
AMOUNT
HOG GROWER HOG FINISHER
Yellow Corn 21.48
6.68
US Soybean, 46% 11.60
2.77
Rice Bran D1 43.19
60.00
Copra Meal 15.00
20.00
Molasses 5.00
7.00
Biofos 1.53
1.13
Limestone, fine 0.98
1.33
Salt 0.50
0.50
L-lysine 0.41
0.35
DL-methionine 0.12
0.05
Choline chloride, 50% 0.10
0.10
Anti-mold 0.05
0.05
Copper sulfate 0.03
0.03
Anti oxidant 0.01
0.01
Total 100.00
100.00

Table 2. Calculated nutrient of Hog Grower and Hog
Finisher diet.
NUTRIENTS
AMOUNT,%
HOG GROWER HOG FINISHER
Crude protein 15.3 13
Crude fat 7.51 9.37
Crude fiber 5.75 6.43
Calcium 0.75 0.80
Avail. Phosphorus 0.50 0.43
ME swine, kcal/kg 2900 2838
Lysine 1.02 0.79
Met+Cys 0.56 0.43
Threonine 0.56 0.45
Tryptophan 0.16 0.12

Table 3. Nutrient composition of Trichantera gigantea
(aerial part).
NUTRIENTS AMOUNTS, %
Dry matter (as fed) 17.5
Crude protein 17.9
Crude fiber 16.1
NDF 48.1
ADF 38.9
Ash 21.4
References: Bui Huy Phuc (2006); Cancio-Morales et al. (2008); Edwards et al. (2012); Galindo et al. (1989); Hess et al. (1998); Keir et al. (1997);
Leterme et al.(2006); Ly et al. (2001); Naranjo et al. (2011); Nguyen Thi Duyen et al. (1996); Nguyen Thi Hong Nhn et al. (1999); Nguyen Xuan Be et al. (2003);
Suarez Salazar et al. (2008)

Table 4. Nutrient composition of Sweet Potato Vine
(aerial part).
NUTRIENTS AMOUNTS, %
Dry matter (as fed) 13.0
Crude protein 16.5
Crude fiber 21.1
NDF 42.7
ADF 31.7
Ash 11.2
References: Bui Thu Hang et al. (2011); CIRAD (1991); Devendra et al. (1970); Dominguez (1992);Dongmeza et al. (2009); Hassoun (2009); Holm (1971);
Le Thi Men (2006); Luh et al. (1979); Nguyen Nhut Xun Dung et al. (2002); Pozy et al. (1996); Teguia et al. (1993); Thim Sokha et al. (2008)

• The native pig experiment (February 20,
2013 and May 5, 2013)
• The carcass and sensory evaluation (May 6-
10, 2013)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

NUTRIENT COMPOSITION
Tricanthera gigantea
(August 2011)
Tricanthera gigantea
(June 2013)
Moisture, % 13.60 10.40
Crude Protein,% 17.60 16.80
Crude Fat, % 1.70 1.70
Crude Fiber, % 11.50 16.00
Calcium, % 3.10 6.80
Phosphorus,% 0.40 0.30
Ash, % 22.50 24.70
Table 5. Nutrient composition of Tricanthera gigantea.
Analyzed at the Central Animal Feed Analysis Laboratory (CAFAL) and Veterinary Drug Assay Laboratories (VDAL), Bureau of Animal
Industry, Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, 2012

AMINO ACID Tricanthera gigantea
Aspartic acid/Asparagine* 11.43
Threonine 1.80
Serine 3.27
Glutamic acid/Glutamine** 7.91
Proline ND
Alanine 2.87
Cysteine** 38.86
Valine 1.89
Methionine 276.59
Isoleucine 0.47
Tyrosine 0.54
Phenylalanine 3.31
Lysine ND
*value of cysteine is an approximation due to limitations of acid hydrolysis
**Aspartic acid interconverts with Asparagine; Glutamic acid interconverts with glutamine acid hydrolysis
ND: not detectable ,
BIOTECH, UPLB 2012
Table 6. Amino acid composition (mg amino acid/g sample dry basis) of Trichanthera
gigantea.

Table 7. Proximate analysis of fresh samples of Trichantera
gigantea, sweet potato vines (DM basis) and diets.
Nutrient Composition
Trichantera
gigantea (leaves
and soft stalk)
Sweet potato
vines (leaves
and vines)
Hog Grower Hog Finisher
Moisture, % 37.46 83.8 11.1 10.2
Crude Protein, % 22.07 4.6 16.8 10.8
Crude Fat, % 1.84 0.6 2.4 2.8
Crude Fiber, % 13.65 2.9 5.5 9.0
Calcium, ppm 52,446 0.16 1.0 2.5
Total Phosphorus, % - 0.08 1.6 1.0
Ash, % - 1.8 26.7 23.9
ADF, % 19.98 16.29 - -
NDF, % 32.45 28.78 - -
ADL, % 4.26 4.30 - -
Analyzed at the Central Analytical Services Laboratory (CASL), National Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of the
Philippines Los Baños, College, Laguna and Central Animal Feed Analysis Laboratory (CAFAL) and Veterinary Drug Assay Laboratories
(VDAL), Bureau of Animal Industry, Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, 2012

Table 8. Consumption of fresh Trichantera gigantea (leaves and soft stalk) and
Sweet potato vines (leaves and vines) of native pig growers at 30d
feeding period.
FORAGE AVERAGE CONSUMPTION, kg
(leaves and soft stalk)
1.24
Sweet potato vines
(leaves and vines)
1.23

Table 9. Average Daily Feed Consumption (ADFC), Average Daily Gain
(ADG), and Feed Efficiency (FE) of native pig growers at 30d
feeding period.
Treatment Initial wt., kg ADFC, kg ADG, kg FE
T 1T 1 15.1 0.85+0.19 0.31+0.11 3.14+1.16
T 2T 2 15.5 0.82+0.15 0.36+0.06 2.27+0.32
T 3T 3 14.7 0.75+0.17 0.35+0.06 2.12+0.46
Average of 5 native pigs per treatment

Sweet potato vines (leaves and vines) of native pig finisher at 40d
feeding period.
1.24
Sweet potato vines
(leaves and vines)
1.23

(ADG), and Feed Efficiency (FE) of native pig finisher at 40d
feeding period.
Treatment Initial wt., kg ADFC, kg ADG, kg FE
T 1 24.4 1.22+0.04 0.15+0.02b
8.51+1.60a
T 2 26.3 1.11+0.12 0.15+0.03ab
7.47+1.30ab
T 3 25.4 1.22+0.17 0.21+0.05a
5.66+1.17b
a,b
Means within the same column with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05)

Sweet potato vines (leaves and vines) of native pig at 70d feeding
period.
1.07
Sweet potato vines
(leaves and vines)
1.06

(ADG), and Feed Efficiency (FE) of native pig at 70d
feeding period.
Treatment Initial wt.,
kg
ADFC, kg ADG, kg FCE
T 1 15.1 1.07+0.09 0.27+0.04 5.15+0.88a
T 2 15.5 0.99+0.13 0.24+0.03 4.22+0.43ab
T 3 14.7 0.99+0.17 0.21+0.04 3.68+0.49b

Fresh Trichantera gigantea
(TG)

Sweet Potato (SP)

CARCASS QUALITY
AND SENSORY EVALUATION
BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY
ANIMAL PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT CENTER (APDC) -
LIVESTOCK RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION (LRDD)

WEIGHING
Photo taken at the BAI-APDC, 2013

SCALDING AND HANGING OF THE CARCASS

Table 14. Carcass quality of Native pigs at 70d feeding trial.
Treatment Dressing
percentage
Loin Eye Area,
sq.inch
Back fat
Thickness, inch
T 1 63.98+0.44 1.63+0.61 1.35+0.52
T 2 70.25+8.63 2.27+0.16 0.93+0.25
T 3 72.11+5.74 2.39+0.288 0.97+0.15

MEASUREMENT OF CARCASS LENGTH AND BACK FAT THICKNESS

MEASUREMENT OF LOIN EYE AREA

Table 15. Sensory Evaluation
Sensory Attributes
Treatment
T 1 T 2 T 3
Color 6.61 6.76 6.44
Flavor 6.27 6.18 6.64
Juiciness* 3.55 3.48 3.86
Tenderness* 3.42 3.45 4.08
General
acceptability
6.58 6.67 6.83

SENSORY EVALUATION AT THE
BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY
-ANIMAL PRODUCTS
DEVELOPMENT CENTER (APDC)
MARULAS VALENZUELA CITY`

Table 16. Feed cost efficiency of native pig grower fed with fresh
Trichantera gigantea (leaves and soft stalk) and Sweet
potato vines (leaves and vines) at 30d feeding period.
PARAMETER TREATMENT
T 1 T 2 T 3
Feed consumption, kg 0.847 0.819 0.750
Live weight gain, kg 0.310 0.360 0.351
Total Feed cost, PhP 17.64 25.32 23.74
Feed Cost Efficiency,
PhP/kg
56.90 70.33 67.64

Table 17. Feed cost efficiency of native pig finisher fed with fresh
potato vines (leaves and vines) at 40d feeding period.
PARAMETER
TREATMENT
T 1 T 2 T 3
PhP/kg
159.12 219.68 169.95

Table 18. Feed cost efficiency of native pigs fed with fresh
potato vines (leaves and vines) at 70d feeding period.PARAMETER
TREATMENT
T 1 T 2 T 3
PhP/kg
158.93 212.77 233.58

Table 19. Economic analysis of native pigs fed with fresh Trichantera
gigantea (leaves and soft stalk) and Sweet potato vines
(leaves and vines) for 70d feeding period.
PARAMETER TREATMENT
T 1 T 2 T 3
Average feed intake, kg
30 days
40 days
70 days
0.85
1.22
1.07
0.82
1.11
0.10
0.75
1.20
0.99
Cost of TG and SPV, PhP2
0 10.70 10.60
Feed cost, PhP1
41.20 38.49 39.18
Cost of native pig 1,300.00 1,330.00 1,282.00
TOTAL COST, PhP 1,341.20 1,475.49 1,331.78
Average live weight, kg 30.90 33.10 34.70
Livability, % 100 100 100
Sales, PhP3
3,054.00 3,186.00 3,282.00
1
Based on the prevailing price of feed ingredients during the conduct of the experiment Hog grower @ 20.83/kg and Hog Finisher @ 19.31/kg;
2
Price of TG and SPV @ P 10/hrvest.3
Based on the prevailing price of native pigs @ PhP1,000/10 kg + PhP60 for additional weight

RECOMMENDATION
Trichantera gigantea can
be used as feed supplement
for pigs
More in-depth studies on T.
gigantea in order to
maximize its potential as
feeding material for pigs
Photo taken by Engr. Edelissa Ramos and Mr. Poquiz, Tiaong, Quezon 2012

THANK YOU!
Photo taken from F.A. Caguicla’s power point presentation, 2010

Native Pig Raising Using Madre de Agua (Trichantera gigantea) as an Alternative Cheap Feed Source / Dr. Marivic de Vera

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to Native Pig Raising Using Madre de Agua (Trichantera gigantea) as an Alternative Cheap Feed Source / Dr. Marivic de Vera

Similar to Native Pig Raising Using Madre de Agua (Trichantera gigantea) as an Alternative Cheap Feed Source / Dr. Marivic de Vera (20)

More from Bureau of Agricultural Research

More from Bureau of Agricultural Research (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Native Pig Raising Using Madre de Agua (Trichantera gigantea) as an Alternative Cheap Feed Source / Dr. Marivic de Vera

Editor's Notes