PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF PIGROLAC MAMA PRO PREMIUM

DEVELOPER FEEDS: DETERMINATION OF NUTRITIONAL CONTENT

OF PIG FEEDS

A Thesis Manuscript
Presented to Krizzia Mae D. Ignacio of the
Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry
Visayas State University
Visca, Baybay, Leyte

In Fulfillment
of the Requirement for the Course
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 147.2 LABORATORY

MA. FIONA GRACE PESARIO MARTILLO

OCTOBER 2024
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This study was made successful through the cooperation and guidance of

multiple people throughout this study. Their support, guidance, and knowledge have

led to the success and completion of this study.

The author’s parents, Mama Joyce, and Papa Irwin, for the financial and

emotional support from the time they started their college journey up until now. Their

patience and understanding during these times encouraged them to keep going and

achieve their goals.

The author’s instructor, Ms. Krizzia Mae D. Ignacio, made this work possible

through her guidance and extensive knowledge of analytical chemistry. She pointed us

in the appropriate direction and made the experiments more enjoyable and, importantly,

successful.

To Carmielle Bascug, Jahsuah Calamba, Tizia Cempron, Himig Ludevese,

and Anthony Ostaco, and to my other classmates who have been very cooperative,

hard-working, and competent in the laboratory throughout the tiring and lengthy

experiments.

To the author’s loving boyfriend, Nathaniel Ruel A. Subang, for being

understanding and supporting the author through their journey.

The author's friends, for their tireless motivation to keep them encouraged and

determined to achieve their goals; and for showing their love and support whenever the

author needed a little nudge.

Lastly, to everyone whom the author failed to mention, thank you for your

unwavering support and guidance.

The Author

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF APPENDICES vi

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES vii

LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES viii

ABSTRACT xi

CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION 1
Nature and Importance of Study 2
Objectives of the Study 2
Scope and Limitations of the Study 2
Time and Place of the Study 3

CHAPTER II – REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 4

Nutrient Composition Value 4
Moisture in Swine Feeds 5
Mineral Composition in Swine Feeds 6
Lipid Composition in Swine Feeds 7

CHAPTER III – MATERIALS & METHODS 8

Moisture Content Determination 8
Preparation of Sample Container 8
Preparation of Sample 8
Analysis of Moisture in Feed Samples 8
Ash Content Determination 9
Preparation of Sample 9
Ashing 9
Crude Fat Determination 10
Preparation of Sample Container 10
Preparation of Sample 10
Crude Fat/ Soxhlet Fat Extraction 10

CHAPTER IV – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12

Moisture Content Determination 12
Ash Content Determination 13
Crude Fat Determination 15

iii
CHAPTER V – SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATIONS 17
Summary 17
Conclusions 18
Recommendations 18

LITERATURE CITED 20

APPENDICES 22

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

1 Weighings of Oven-dried Feeds until a constant mass 12

2 Mass of Swine Feed Samples Before and After Heating 12

3 Percent Moisture and Statistical Analysis of Dried 12

Samples

4 Mass of Oven-Dried Feeds (Ash) after Dry Ashing 13

5 Percent Ash and Statistical Analysis of Ash Content 14

6 Mass of Filter paper and Swine Feed Sample before 15

Extraction

7 Mass of Sample after Extraction and Crude Fat 15

Percentage

v
 LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX NO. TITLE PAGE

I Raw Data Tables 22

II Calculations 24

III Materials and Equipment 27

IV Standard Methods Used 29

V Nutrient Standards for Swine Feeds (Bureau of 31

Animal Industry, 2008; Aherne, 2006)

vi
 LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

APPENDIX TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

1 Mass of Crucibles with Oven Drying 22

2 Mass of Swine Sample Replicates 22

3 Sequential Weughings for Oven-Dried Feeds 22

until Constant Mass

4 Mass of Oven-Dried Feeds before Ashing 23

5 Mass of Filter paper and Swine Feed Sample 23

6 Mass of tea bag with sample before and after 24

extraction

vii
 LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES

APPENDIX FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

1 Analytical Balance 27

2 Desiccator 27

3 Forced-Draft Oven 27

4 Swine Feed Sample on Analytical Balance 28

5 Muffle Furnace with Swine Feed Samples 28

6 Soxhlet Fat extraction Setup 28

7 Swine Feed Sample after Fat Extraction 28

viii
 ABSTRACT

MARTILLO, MA. FIONA GRACE P. Visayas State University. October

2024. Proximate Analysis of Mama Pro Premium Developer Feeds.

Instructor: KRIZZIA MAE D. IGNACIO

A well-balanced diet is essential for the growth of healthy pigs and for positive

yield in pork production. To ensure the proper nutrition and diet of these livestock we

must meet the nutritional requirements desired for a healthy pig, to guarantee this we

must determine the nutrient composition, and the quantities present in the animal feed.

This study aimed to determine the basic nutrient composition of Pigrolac Mama Pro

Premium Developer Feeds through feed quality assessment by proximate analysis using

Moisture Content Determination, Dry Ashing, and Crude Fat Determination, the

sampling duration started September 2024 to October 2024. The determined moisture

content of 9.7075% ± 0.1600% suggests an extended shelf life. Still, it may compromise

palatability, while the ash content of 5.0697% ± 0.8675% aligns with the recommended

range for optimal mineral balance, essential for fetal development. Additionally, the

crude fat content of 4.7900% supports the energy needs of gestating sows. The

significance of this study is to determine how well the feed fulfills industry standards

and meets the nutritional requirements necessary for the overall health and efficiency

of sows during gestation. Lastly, by resolving the limits and methodical deviations, the

findings provide a basis for further research and feed formulation enhancements.

Keywords: Pigrolac Mama Pro Premium Developer, nutrient composition,

feed quality assessment, proximate analysis

ix
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Nature and Importance of the Study

Nutrition is a crucial factor in pig farming, as it directly affects their health,

growth, and productivity. The food that animals eat is broken down, absorbed, and used

to provide energy for daily tasks. However, not every food ingredient is digested.

Nutrition is the process of getting the food required for growth and health, and nutrients

are the parts of food that the body uses (Pathak, 2020).

Sows, particularly during gestation and lactation periods, require highly

specialized nutrition to support their own health and the development of their piglets.

Pigrolac Mama Pro Premium Developer is designed for gestating sows, addressing their

increasing nutritional needs throughout the pregnancy. Studies suggest that proper

nutrition during the gestation period supports optimal fetal development, helps maintain

appropriate body condition, and improves litter quality by reducing the rates of stillborn

and low birthweights (Islas-Fabila et al., 2024). Additional Research shows that

providing appropriate nutrition during these stages promotes healthy fetal development

and helps the sow maintain a stable body condition (Close, 2014).

For countries heavily reliant on agriculture and livestock production, such as

the Philippines, including swine farming, accurate feed analysis through proximate

analysis is essential for ensuring food security and economic stability (Pawlak &

Kołodziejczak, 2020). This is integral to food systems, accurate feed composition data

helps ensure that animals receive the right balance of nutrients, improving their health,

productivity, and sustainability. Proximate analysis allows farmers and feed producers
 2

to optimize diets for animals. Furthermore, it is a key element in meeting the increasing

demands for animal products in both local and export markets, which can lead to

improved national food self-sufficiency and economic growth.

Objectives of the Study

The study aimed to evaluate the nutritional composition of Pigrolac Mama Pro

Premium Developer feeds. Specifically, this study was conducted to:

1. Determine the basic nutrient composition of Pigrolac Mama Pro Premium

Developer Pig feeds.

2. Evaluate whether the requirements or specifications that were set during

formulation have been fulfilled by the animal feeds.

3. To compare the results of the proximate analysis with industry or national

standards for gestating sow feeds.

Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study evaluates the basic nutrient composition of Pigrolac Mama Pro

Premium Developer feeds by proximate analysis, the moisture content determination,

dry ashing, and crude fat determination were all done on-site.

While proximate analysis provides valuable insight into the nutritional

composition of animal feed, it has limitations such as limited information on the

nutrient details such as specific mineral profiles that cannot be determined, another

significant limitation is there is no specificity for the nutrient quality present as the

methods used cannot distinguish between certain compounds. Additionally, the

assumption that all nitrogen present is obtained from protein is inaccurate, as non-

protein nitrogen sources may also contribute to the nitrogen content (Maynard et al.,
 3

1979). Lastly, the methods used are outdated as new technology could provide a more

accurate and detailed analysis of the nutrient composition in animal feed.

Time and Place of the Study

Feed sampling and proximate analysis methods were all conducted from

September 2024 to October 2024 at Visayas State University, Baybay City, Leyte, in

the Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry, namely, Room AC-109.

 4

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Nutrient Composition Evaluation of Swine Feeds

The nutrient composition of gestating sow feeds like Pigrolac is formulated to

ensure balanced nutrition. This type of feed is designed to provide the right balance of

macro-nutrients (Carbohydrates, proteins, and fats) and micro-nutrients (vitamins &

minerals) necessary for health, fetal development, and the reproductive performance of

sows.

However, specific formulations for Pigrolac aren’t publicly accessible, so we

must predict its contents through experimentation and comparing industry standards

and nutritional recommendations, such as those provided by the Bureau of Animal

Industry (BAI), National Research Council (NRC), Association of Official Analytical

Chemists (AOAC), and other associations that can provide information on specific

nutritional components in swine feeds.

According to an article by Frank Aherne (2006), data shows that gestational

swine feeds must contain approximately about 1.5 Mcal/lb of metabolizable energy;

this varies across the sow's weight, body condition, and environmental factors. Crude

protein levels should be around 13.5% and requirements for it increase as gestation

progresses to support fetal growth (Islas-Fabila et al., 2024). Amino Acids such as

lysine should be around 0.55%, with digestible lysine at 0.45%. Minerals are also a key

component I swine feeds; The Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) recommends that

swine feeds contain between 0.85% to 1.15% calcium (Ca) and 0.70% phosphorus (P).

Aherne (2006) suggests slightly different values, indicating that the calcium content

should be approximately 0.90%, with phosphorus levels around 0.75%, which is

 5

marginally higher than the BAI's guidelines. These differences highlight slight

variations in recommended nutrient levels depending on the source, reflecting evolving

research on the optimal mineral requirements for swine. Nutritional evaluation

through proximate analysis is crucial for formulating effective diets for gestational

swine feeds. Regular assessments help maintain high standards in swine nutrition

management, ultimately leading to improved reproductive performance and overall

herd productivity (Mallman et al., 2020).

Moisture in Animal Feed

The moisture content of feed influences the nutritional assessment of feed

ingredients. Accurate moisture content is essential for converting nutrient values to a

dry matter basis which is vital for formulating balanced diets for livestock (Ahn et al.,

2014). Maintaining optimal moisture levels is critical to the quality of animal feeds.

The ideal moisture at 12% according to the Bureau of Animal Industry (2008) as it

helps maintain the integrity of the feeds ensuring they last long during storage and

transport.

However, this can vary depending on the specific ingredients used in feed

formulation as well as the methods used in processing. Different ingredients can include

corn and soybean meals which have lower moisture levels compared to silage or wet

by-products like distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS), which can have moisture

contents exceeding 10% (Ahn et al., 2014). High moisture levels can dilute the

nutritional content in the feeds, potentially leading to inadequate nutrient intake for the

sow and her developing litter. Conversely, low moisture content can affect palatability

and digestibility, which may reduce food intake during the gestation period.
 6

It is evident in studies that swine generally prefer moist food over dry food as it

is flavorful and aromatic; these wet feeds also tend to encourage higher feed intake due

to their easy digestibility. In addition, this also helps reduce selective feeding behavior.

These factors contribute to healthier pigs with improved growth performance and

welfare; comparing this to the growth rate and feed conversion of those of pigs fed dry

feed; the ocular muscles were somewhat wider and the carcass lengths were marginally

smaller. (Braude & Rowell, 2009).

Mineral Composition in Swine Feeds

Mineral content in gestational swine feeds plays a vital role in the health and

productivity of sows. Understanding the mineral composition through methods like dry

ashing can give us insights into whether the nutritional requirements are met

effectively.

Minerals play a crucial role in psychological functions, enzyme functions,

psychological functions, and metabolic processes in pigs. Essential minerals during the

gestational period are calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), though there

are a few others not mentioned, the focus will be those that are frequently used in the

production of swine feeds. As mentioned earlier, according to the Bureau of Animal

Industry (BAI), the recommended mineral concentrations for gestating sows include

0.85% - 1.15% calcium (Ca), 0.70% phosphorus (P). These values ensure adequate

nutrient supply to maintain the sow’s body as well as supporting fetal growth.

It is important to keep these minerals regulated. Bureau of Animal Industry

(BAI) provides mineral requirements in swine diets, emphasizing the need for a

properly balanced supplementation to prevent deficiencies and toxicities.

 7

Lipid Composition in Swine Feeds

Typically, lipid content in gestational feeds ranges from 2% to 5% crude fat,

depending on the specific dietary formulation and nutritional goals. According to the

National Research Council (NRC) provide guidelines that suggest a minimum fat level

of 2% to ensure adequate energy supply and nutrient absorption during gestation.

Locally, according to BAI, the optimal crude fat in Swine gestating feeds should be

around 3%. Lipids are a concentrated source of energy, providing approximately 9

kcal/g, which is crucial for meeting the increased energy demands of pregnant sows.

A comprehensive assessment of lipid content enables improved diet planning to

guarantee that all dietary needs are satisfied without going beyond it, which may cause

obesity or metabolic diseases in sows and lower the quality of their litter. For instance,

higher levels of unsaturated acids, particularly omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, have

been associated with improved reproductive performance and better milk quality post-

farrowing (Mallman et al., 2016). Moreover, studies indicate that appropriate lipid

levels can enhance piglet birth weights and litter performance (Sol et al., 2019).
 8

CHAPTER III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Moisture Content Determination

Preparation of Sample Container

For the container of the sample, a makeshift crucible was created using

aluminum foil as there was a lack of ceramic crucibles during this point in the study.

To ensure experiment accuracy, pre-heating of the crucible until a difference of 0.0010g

was necessary to ensure accuracy and consistency in moisture content testing, which is

essential for applications where precise water content determination is needed.

Preparation of Sample

A representative sample was taken from the bulk feed. The sample was then

ground into uniform particle size. Three 15 g samples were then weighed using an

analytical balance.

Analysis of Moisture in Feed Samples

The 15g triplicates were then placed in a drying oven and initially heated to

105°C, for 5 hours, this was done to allow sufficient time for the bulk of the moisture

in the sample to evaporate. It is important to note that moisture is not uniformly

distributed, the initial drying is a crucial step to ensure that most of the moisture is

gradually released from its structure. Following the 5-hour heating, the samples were

heated for 30 minutes to 1 hour until the mass of the sample stabilized (achieving a

constant difference of 0.0010g between measurements). The use of 0.0010g as a

constant weight criterion is to ensure reproducibility across multiple trials and samples.

By ensuring a small mass of 0.0010g, it is certain that there is no additional moisture

remaining. Many scientific protocols and industry (ISO) standards for moisture analysis
 9

require stability in this threshold. This step is most crucial as it ensures that all moisture

or volatile compounds have been completely removed from the sample. During the

experiment, a total of 19 weighings were done for Crucibles 1 and 3 to achieve constant

mass and 16 weighings for Crucible 2 to achieve constant mass. Thereafter, the

Moisture percent of each sample was determined using the equation:

𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (𝑔) 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔 − 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (𝑔) 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑟𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔

% 𝑀𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 = × 100
𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (𝑔) 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔

Ash Determination

Preparation of Sample

Using the triplicates from the Moisture Content Determination experiment,

exactly 0.1000g of feeds from each replicate was weighed on the analytical balanace

and placed them into a glaze crucible.

It is important to note that according to the AOAC, using a standardized weight

of 0.1000g makes comparisons easier between different studies, ensuring that results

from different experiments and studies can be reliably compared and reproduced.

Ashing

Once the sample has been properly prepared, we must place the replicates into

a muffle furnace set to 500℃ and heat them for 5 hours until the sample is light gray in

color. This was done to burn off all organic matter, leaving the inorganic residue which

we can quantify as the mineral content of the feed (Nielsen, 2010).

Retrieve the samples from the furnace and weigh on the analytical balance to

calculate the mass of the inorganic material left over. Subsequently, the Ash Percentage
 10

can be calculated using the formula:

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑠ℎ (𝑔)

% 𝐴𝑠ℎ = × 100
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 (𝑔)

Crude Fat Determination

Preparation of Sample Container

A pre-weighed filter paper was created into a makeshift tea bag by securing

the fold with staples and a string.

Preparation of Sample

1.000 g of dried sample was weighed using the analytical balance and placed

into the makeshift tea bag, close the tea bag by stapling folds and make sure that the

sample stayed inside the makeshift tea bag. Load the swine sample into the thimble.

Soxhlet extraction method

To determine and separate the fat content from the swine sample we must use

the Soxhlet method, which involves continuous extraction using a solvent. This is a

traditional technique used to extract lipids from food (Hewavitharana et al., 2020).

We must set up the apparatus by attaching the Soxhlet tube to a round-bottom

flask, and a condenser. We then place the thimble into the Soxhlet tube ensuring it is

secured. We then add about 500mL of hexane into the round bottom flask. Hexane is

chosen due to its high efficiency in extracting fats and oils and its compatibility with

Soxhlet extraction. According to the AOAC (Association of Official Analytical

Chemists), hexane is one of the most widely recommended solvents for lipid extraction

in food and feed analysis because of its non-polar properties and ease of recovery after

evaporation.
 11

We must now heat the set-up using a heating plate. This process will be repeated

in cycles allowing the solvent to extract the fat continuously as it recirculates.

Recirculation will continue until no more fat is being extracted (solvent returns clear).

Once the extraction is complete, we must remove the solvent from the round-

bottom flask as this contains the fat extract. This solvent must then be evaporated to

leave behind the lipid content. The remaining fat must then be dried to remove any

residual content. Cool in a desiccator for 1 hour, then weigh the flask in an analytical

balance to determine the mass of the fat. The fat content can then be calculated by using

the equation:

𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑎𝑡 (𝑔)

% 𝐹𝑎𝑡 = × 100
𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 (𝑔)

Where:

𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑎𝑡 = 𝑤𝑡. 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 (𝑔) + 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔

− 𝑤𝑡. 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 (𝑔) + 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔

 12

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Moisture Content Determination

Table 1. Weighing Oven-Dried Feeds until Constant Mass

Mass of Oven-Dried Feeds (g)

WEIGHING NO. CRUCIBLE 1 CRUCIBLE 2 CRUCIBLE 3
1 16.2147 16.0224 16.7637
15 15.8266 15.7327 16.2730
16 15.8407 15.7323 16.2853
17 15.6872 - 16.3277
18 15.7922 - 16.2580
19 15.8244 - 16.2729

Table 2. Mass of Swine Sample Before and After Heating

CRUCIBLE MASS OF MASS OF SAMPLE MASS OF SAMPLE

NO. SAMPLE (g) BEFORE HEATING AFTER HEATING
1 15.0051 17.2924 15.8244
2 15.0068 17.1543 15.7232
3 15.0081 17.7524 16.2729

Table 3. Percent Moisture & Statistical Analysis of Dried Samples

REPLICATE REPLICATE REPLICATE MEAN SD

1 2 3
9.7833% 9.4757% 9.8580% 9.7057% 0.1600%

Table 1 reveals the progressive mass fluctuation of the oven-dried feeds across

1g sequential weighings. This shows the gradual removal of moisture as the samples

were dried in the oven. Crucibles 1 and 3 stabilized at 19 weighings while Crucible 2
 13

stabilized at only 16 weighings. The reason for conducting 19 weighings was for the

mass of the samples to completely stabilize. Despite the care taken during the weighings

there were several sources of error experienced. The possibility of using a DIY foil

crucible contributed to fluctuating mass readings on the analytical balance due to

aluminum foil quickly cooling after being removed from the oven as well as human

error in handling the samples weighing the samples, or random errors that cannot be

prevented.

The results of the Moisture Content Determination were reported as a mean

value of 9.7075%±0.1600% which indicates low variability between the samples. This

value is important because feed moisture content affects its shelf life and nutrient

composition. In swine nutrition, particularly for gestating sows, feed moisture is

typically recommended to be around 12%. The results in Appendix Table 4 suggest that

the tested feed is lower quality than of industry standards for swine gestation feeds; this

can be advantageous in terms of shelf-life but not in terms of palatability and intake by

sows. Studies show that pigs are naturally attracted to moist foods due to their texture

and aroma, and because wet food is easily digestible it encourages higher feed intake

(Lawlor & O’Meara, 2018).

Maintaining moisture levels around this range, the nutritional integrity of the

feed can be preserved while meeting industry standards for gestating sow feeds.

Ash Determination

Table 4. Mass of Oven-Dried Feeds (Ash) after Dry Ashing

CRUCIBLE CRUCIBLE ASH + CRUCIBLE ASH (g)

NO. (g)
1 14.7768 14.7768 0.0050
 14

2 15.6450 15.6450 0.0043

3 15.4551 15.6411 0.0060

Table 5. Percent Ash and Statistical Analysis of Ash Content

REPLICATE REPLICATE REPLICATE MEAN SD

1 2 3
4.9261% 4.2829% 6.000% 5.0697% 0.8675%

The ash content determination a mean value of 5.0697% ± 0.8675% was

observed, this falls within a reasonable range for swine gestation feeds. According to

industry guidelines, ash content in swine feeds typically ranges from 4% - 6% and the

ash limit for swine feeds is typically around 5% - 8% of the total feed composition,

depending on the specific formulation and regulatory guidelines. The data aligns with

the nutrient requirements recommended by both the National Swine Nutrition Guide

and the National Research Council (NRC).

It is important to keep track of the mineral content in feeds as this can pose

several potential health risks. One of the main concerns of excessive ash content is it

indicates high levels of certain materials while it cannot be determined which specific

minerals can lead to imbalances in the diet of a swine. For instance, an overabundance

of calcium, a frequent mineral used in the production of pig feeds can interfere with

phosphorus absorption, leading to deficiencies that affect bone development and

growth in pigs (Lee et al., 2020). Another key risk is that high ash levels result from

contaminants that introduce toxic trace materials.

The mineral composition of ash can vary significantly based on the source of

the feed material and processing methods. Understanding this variability is crucial for

adequate diet formulation.

 15

Crude Fat Determination

Table 6. Mass of filter paper and swine feed sample

PARAMETER MASS (g)

Filter Paper 1.2765

Swine Feed Sample 1.0000

Table 7. Mass of sample after extraction and Crude Fat Percentage

SAMPLE MASS OF TEA MASS OF TEA % CRUDE FAT

BAG WITH BAG WITH
FEEDS BEFORE FEEDS AFTER
EXTRACTION EXTRACTION
(g) (g)
C1 3.1754 3.1275 4.7900%

Based on Appendix Table 9, the crude fat percentage of the swine feed sample

after extraction is calculated to be 4.7900%. For gestating sow feeds, the industry

standards typically recommend a fat content in the range of 2% to 5% crude fat.

According to the NRC, guidelines suggest a minimum fat level of 2% to ensure

adequate energy supply and nutrient absorption during gestation.

However, certain limitations should be considered when interpreting these

results. It is important to note that only one sample was analyzed, which raises concerns

regarding the reliability and generalizability of these results. Additionally, during the

extraction process, the solvent was depleted prematurely, preventing the completion of

even a single extraction cycle. Due to a limited amount of solvents, the swine feed

sample was soaked in the condensed solvent for two days as an alternative method to

extract the crude fat.

 16

While this modification allowed for the extraction to proceed, it introduces

variations in the efficiency and completeness of fat removal, which may have impacted

the final results.

 17

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The proximate analysis of Pigrolac Mama Pro Premium Developer Feeds was

conducted to evaluate its nutritional composition, focusing on moisture content, ash,

and crude fat. The results were compared with industry standards for gestating swine

feeds, providing insights into how the feed’s effectiveness for gestating sows.

The moisture content was determined to be 9.7075% ± 0.1600%, this falls

slightly below the industry standard range of 12% for gestating sow feeds. Although

this is advantageous in terms of shelf life, it greatly affects palatability and intake for

the swine.

The ash content was found to be 5.0697% ± 0.8675%, aligning well with the

recommended industry guidelines, that ash content in swine gestation feeds ranges

between 4% - 6% (NRC, 2012). This level of ash indicates a balanced mineral content

in the feed, providing essential nutrients like calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium

necessary for fetal development and bone health.

The crude fat percentage was measured at 4.7900%, falling within the

recommended range of 3% for swine gestation feeds (BAI, 2008). Fat is a crucial

energy source during gestation, supporting the metabolic demands of a pregnant sow.

However, the experiment faced limitations due to the depletion of solvent during the

Soxhlet extraction process, potentially affecting the completeness of the fat extraction

and accuracy of the results.

The results of this study, particularly for moisture, ash, and fat content, align

closely with established standards in swine nutrition. However, the study acknowledges
 18

the limitations in the sample size and procedural deviations, which have introduced

variations in the data. For more robust conclusions future studies should involve

multiple replicates (Nielsen, 2010; Gonzalez-Vega et al., 2016) and improved solvent

management during crude fat extraction.

Conclusion

From the results of the study, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The moisture content determined, 9.7075% ± 0.1600%, falls below the industry

standard range of 12% moisture in gestational swine feeds.

2. The ash content determined, 5.0697% ± 0.8675%, falls within the limits of the

industry standard range of 4-6% ash content in gestational swine feeds.

3. The crude fat percentage measured at 4.7900% falls within the recommended range

of 2- 5% for swine gestation feeds. This information should be regarded with caution,

as the procedures employed in this study deviated from standard laboratory testing

protocols. Variations in methodology can significantly impact the accuracy and

reliability of the results, making it essential to interpret findings within this context.

Recommendations

To improve the reliability of the overall results of the study, several strategies

can be implemented based on established methods and best practices in analytical

chemistry.

1. Follow established protocols, such as AOAC Official Method 930.15 (for Moisture

Content Determination) and AOAC Official Method 942.05 for Ash Determination) to

ensure accuracy and comparability of results across different studies and results.

2. Perform multiple replicates for each sample to improve the reliability of results. This

allows statistical analysis and helps identify any outliers and anomalies in the data.
 19

3. Consider sample composition, different feed ingredients may yield varying contents;

affecting the results of the data. It is essential to analyze a representative sample that

reflects the overall feed composition.

4. Ensure an adequate supply of solvents before starting extraction to avoid premature

depletion, which compromises extraction efficiency.

5. To fully understand the contents in feed during proximate analysis, chemical analysis

techniques such as Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) and X-Ray Fluorescence

(XRF) to analyze specific minerals or the elemental composition of the ash samples

providing detailed information about the minerals present. High-Performance Liquid

Chromatography can be used for fatty acid analysis, dealing with complex mixtures or

when specific lipid classes need to be separated.

 20

LITERATURE CITED

Islas-Fabila , P., Roldán-Santiago, P., de la Cruz-Cruz, L. A., Limón-Morales, O.,

Dutro-Aceves, A., Orozco-Gregorio, H., & Bonilla-Jaime, H. (2024, January
27). Importance of selected nutrients and additives in the feed of pregnant sows
for the survival of newborn piglets. Animals : an open access journal from
MDPI. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38338061/

Close, W. (2014b, December 12). Phase feeding of sows in gestation. pig333.com.

https://www.pig333.com/articles/phase-feeding-of-sows-in-gestation_9338/

Pathak, N. (2021, December 15). Animal Nutrition: Desirable characteristics of

nutrition: JLI Agribusiness Blog. JLI Blog | Global Training & Education
Provider. https://www.jliedu.com/blog/animal-nutrition-characteristics/

Aherne, F. (2015, October 20). Feeding the gestating sow. Pork Information Gateway.
https://porkgateway.org/resource/feeding-the-gestating-sow-2/

Pawlak, K., & Kołodziejczak, M. (2020, July 7). The role of agriculture in ensuring
food security in developing countries: Considerations in the context of the
problem of sustainable food production. MDPI. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-
1050/12/13/5488

Ahn, J. Y., Kil, D. Y., Kong, C., & Kim, B. G. (2014, November). Comparison of oven-
drying methods for determination of moisture content in feed ingredients.
Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4213707//

Mallmann, A. L., Oliveira, G. S., Ulguim, R. R., Mellagi, A. P. G., Bernardi, M. L.,
Orlando, U. A. D., Gonçalves, M. A. D., Cogo, R. J., & Bortolozzo, F. P. (2020,
March 1). Impact of feed intake in early gestation on maternal growth and litter
size according to body reserves at weaning of young parity sows. Journal of
animal science. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7098703/

Braude, R., & Rowell, J. G. (2009, March 27). Comparison of dry and wet feeding of
growing pigs: The Journal of Agricultural Science. Cambridge Core.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-agricultural-
science/article/abs/comparison-of-dry-and-wet-feeding-of-growing-
pigs/18D241B67660948070A1DCBD616BC272

National Research Council. (2011). Read “nutrient requirements of swine: Eleventh

revised edition” at nap.edu. Front Matter | Nutrient Requirements of Swine:
Eleventh Revised Edition | The National Academies Press.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/13298
 21

Mallmann, A. L., Betiolo, F. B., Camilloti, E., Mellagi, A. P. G., Ulguim, R. R., Wentz,
I., Bernardi, M. L., Gonçalves, M. A. D., Kummer, R., & Bortolozzo, F. P.
(2018, September 29). Two different feeding levels during late gestation in gilts
and sows under commercial conditions: Impact on piglet birth weight and
female reproductive performance. Journal of animal science.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6162569/

Sol, C., Castillejos, L., López-Vergé, S., Muns, R., & Gasa, J. (2019, October 12).
Effects of the feed: Water mixing proportion on diet digestibility of Growing
Pigs. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6826550/

Nielsen, S. S. (2010). Food analysis. SpringerLink.

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4419-1478-1

Hewavitharana, G. G., Perera, D. N., Navaratne , S. B., & Wickramasinghe, I. (2020,

July 9). Extraction methods of fat from food samples and preparation of fatty
acid methyl esters for gas chromatography: A Review. Arabian Journal of
Chemistry.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878535220302458

Lee, S. A., Lagos, L. V., Bedford, M. R., & Stein, H. H. (2021). Quantities of ash, CA,
and P in metacarpals, metatarsals, and tibia are better correlated with total body
bone ash in growing pigs than ash, CA, and p in other bones. Journal of Animal
Science, 99(6). https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skab149

Lawlor, P., & O’ Meara, F. (2018). Comparison of dry, wet/dry and wet feeding for
finisher pigs. Teagasc. https://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2018/comparison-
of-dry-wetdry-and-wet-feeding-for-finisher-pigs.php

Vista, F. (n.d.-a). Annex 1. nutrient standards for poultry feeds: Broiler chickens
(meat-type). Scribd. https://www.scribd.com/document/460100521/BAI-
Requirements?fbclid=IwY2xjawGAKsVleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHUXyAuLcho
P1qsuP8fgElzE4TKbmheqFNMjDS3NIiHe2AhNTwXGkj-
wM2A_aem_uFnUZoXg_33bNDdsHETb5g

Tono, H. (2022, March 11). BAI Requirements. https://www.bai.gov.ph.

https://www.bai.gov.ph/media/4unbli5u/bid-bulletin-
003.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawGAKzhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHY-yi-
jnlWC9qcH8_RhLmCY-iDXY-
Tq7XBw4Zu24nIgUq5zXcoEfI_cRTA_aem_RdqO49IUow5az2seCaT_sg
 22

APPENDICES
 22

APPENDIX I

RAW DATA TABLES

Moisture Content Determination

Appendix Table 1. Mass of Crucible with Oven Drying

MASS OF CRUCIBLE (g)

CRUCIBLE TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
NO. (AFTER 30 MINS (ANOTHER 30
OVEN DRYING) MINS OVEN
DRYING)
1 2.2895 2.2871 2.2873
2 2.1484 2.1478 2.1475
3 2.7479 2.7440 2.7443

Appendix Table 2. Mass of the Swine Sample Replicates

CRUCIBLE MASS OF FEEDS + CRUCIBLE MASS OF FEEDS (g)

NO. (g)
Crucible 1 17.2924 15.0054
Crucible 2 17.4543 15.0068
Crucible 3 17.1524 15.0081

Appendix Table 3. Sequential weighings for Oven-Dried feeds until Constant Mass

MASS OF OVEN-DRIED FEEDS (g)

WEIGHING NO. CRUCIBLE 1 CRUCIBLE 2 CRUCIBLE 3
1 16.2147 16.0224 16.7637
2 16.1441 16.0310 16.7472
3 16.1579 16.0466 16.7501
4 16.1140 16.0079 16.7033
5 16.0513 15.9489 16.6073
6 16.1329 16.0092 16.6386
7 16.9662 16.0762 16.5768
 23

8 16.0155 15.9076 16.5350

9 16.9029 15.8132 16.4349
10 16.4374 15.8335 15.9841
11 16.4216 15.8165 15.9108
12 15.8348 15.7576 16.3539
13 15.8275 15.7455 16.2999
14 15.8494 15.7499 16.2984
15 15.8266 15.7327 16.2730
16 15.8407 15.7323 16.2853
17 15.6872 - 16.3277
18 15.7922 - 16.2580
19 15.8244 - 16.2729

Ash Content Determination

Appendix Table 4. Mass of Oven-Dried Feeds before Ashing

CRUCIBLE CRUCIBLE W/O CAP (g) MASS OF FEEDS IN

NO. CRUCIBLE (g)
1 15.4978 0.1015
2 15.6928 0.1004
3 14.8215 0.1000

Crude Fat Extraction

Appendix Table 5. Mass of filter paper and swine feed sample

PARAMETER MASS

Filter Paper 1.2765

Swine Feed Sample 1.0000

 24

Appendix Table 6. Mass of tea bag with sample before and after extraction

SAMPLE MASS OF TEA BAG WITH MASS OF TEA BAG WITH

FEEDS BEFORE FEEDS AFTER
EXTRACTION (g) EXTRACTION (g)
C1 3.1754 3.1275
 25

APPENDIX II

CALCULATIONS

Moisture Content Determination

𝐶1 % 𝑀𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒

17.2924 − 15.8244
× 100 = 9.7833%
15.0051

𝐶2 % 𝑀𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒

17.1543 − 15.7323
× 100 = 9.4757%
15.0068

𝐶3 % 𝑀𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒

17.7524 − 16.2729
× 100 = 9.8580%
15.0081

Ash Content Determination

𝐶1 % 𝐴𝑠ℎ

0.0050
× 100 = 4.9261%
0.1015

𝐶2 % 𝐴𝑠ℎ

0.0043
× 100 = 4.2829%
0,1004

𝐶3 % 𝐴𝑠ℎ

0.0060
× 100 = 6.000%
0.1000
 26

Crude Fat Determination

𝐶1 % 𝐶𝑟𝑢𝑑𝑒 𝐹𝑎𝑡

3.1754 − 3.1275
× 100 = 4.7900%
1.0000
 27

APPENDIX III

MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

Moisture Content Determination

Appendix Figure 1. Analytical Balance Appendix Figure 2. Desiccator

Appendix Figure 3. Forced-draft Oven

 28

Ash Content Determination

Appendix Figure 4. Swine Feed Appendix Figure 5. Muffle Furnace

Sample on Analytical Balance with Swine Feed Samples

Crude Fat Extraction

Appendix Figure 6. Soxhlet Fat Appendix Figure 7. Swine Feed

Extraction Setup Sample after Fat Extraction
 29

APPENDIX IV

STANDARD METHODS USED

 30

Analytical Chemistry Laboratory Manual, 2024

 31

APPENDIX V
NUTRIENT STANDARDS FOR SWINE FEEDS (Bureau of Animal
Industry, 2008)

SUGGESTED FEEDING ALLOWANCES FOR GESTATING SOWS (Aherne,

2006)