Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:06:15.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of protein concentrations in diets given unchanged to pigs from 18 to 93 kg live weight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

I. A. M. Lucas
Affiliation:
University College of North Wales, Bangor, and The Meat and Livestock Commission, Sealand, Flintshire
K. L. Miles
Affiliation:
University College of North Wales, Bangor, and The Meat and Livestock Commission, Sealand, Flintshire
Get access

Summary

In the national pig progeny test stations one diet is given up to about 55 kg live weight and another, with less protein, is given from then until slaughter. These diets were compared with four ‘single’ diets, similar in digestible-energy content, but containing either 15·6, 17·4, 18·7 or 22·1% crude protein, and each given unchanged from 18 to 93 kg live weight. There were twenty groups of one castrate and one gilt on each treatment.

Pigs given the lowest protein levels had the poorest growth rates and feed conversion efficiency up to 57 kg live weight, but the best from 57 to 93 kg. Hence there were no differences in overall feed efficiency, and overall growth rate was only slightly less with the lowest protein level than with other treatments.

Carcass leanness rose with protein level in the ‘single’ diets over the range 15·6·18·7% crude protein, but a further increase to 22·1% reduced leanness.

Pigs given the progeny test diets had carcasses intermediate in composition to those of pigs on the ‘single’ diets with 17·4% and 18·7% protein.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. 1967. The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock, No. 3, Pigs. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Bayley, H. S. and Summers, J. D. 1968. Effect of protein level and lysine and methionine supplementation on the performance of growing pigs: response of different sexes and strains of pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 48: 181188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellis, D. B. 1965. Protein levels for bacon pigs. Anim. Prod. 7: 286 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Braude, R. and Rowell, J. G. 1968. Effect of simplifying feeding methods for growing pigs by using a single ration throughout and by providing cereal and supplement components unmixed. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 71: 271275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, A. G. 1968. The effects of dietary fish meal level on the performance of growing pigs. Anim. Prod. 10: 236 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Chamberlain, A. G. and Cooke, B. C. 1970. The nutritive value of separated milk for pigs. II. The effects of different amounts on performance to 90 kg live weight. Anim. Prod. 12: 125137.Google Scholar
Clausen, H. 1953. George Scott Robertson Memorial Lecture, Queens Univ., Belfast.Google Scholar
Cooke, R., Lodge, G. A., Pappas, S. and Lewis, D. 1968. High nutrient concentration diets for growing pigs. Anim. Prod. 10: 237 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H. 1963. Studies of growth and development in the young pig. Part I. The carcass composition at 56 days of age of pigs reared along different growth curves. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 61: 233241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oslage, J., Fliegel, H., Farries, F. E. and Richter, K. 1966. [Accretion of N, fat and energy by growing fattening pigs.] Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernähr. Futtermittelk. 21: 5065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piatkowski, B. and Jung, H. 1966. [Accumulation of protein by growing pigs of different sexes and types. 1. Accumulation and conversion of N and weight gain at the individual growth stages.] Arch. Tierz. 9: 307319.Google Scholar
Prescott, J. H. D. and Lamming, G. E. 1967. The influence of castration on the growth of male pigs in relation to high levels of dietary protein. Anim. Prod. 9: 535545.Google Scholar
Rérat, A. and Henry, Y. 1967. [N requirements of the growing pig. 2. Utilisation of fishmeal in amount of excess of protein requirement.] Annls Zootech. 16: 203211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. W. 1966. Sex differences in the response of pigs to dietary amino-acid supplementation, with references to growth and body composition. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 17: 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, D. W. and Lewis, D. 1964. Protein and energy nutrition of the bacon pig. 2. The effect of varying the protein and energy levels in the diets of ‘finishing’ pigs. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 63:185190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. W., Morgan, J. T. and Lewis, D. 1964. Protein and energy nutrition of the bacon pig. 1. The effect of varying protein and energy levels in the diets of growing pigs. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 62: 369376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. 1956. Statistical Methods. 5th ed. Iowa State College Press, Ames, la.Google Scholar