Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:37:00.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of oxytetracycline and oleandomycin. Separately and together in pig diets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

W. C. Smith ,
J. L. Adam  and
H. M. Tonks
W. C. Smith
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
J. L. Adam
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
H. M. Tonks
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Get access

Extract

1. Normal rations containing oleandomycin (2·5 g./ton), oxytetracycline (10 g./ton) and oleandomycin (2·5 g./ton)plus oxytetracycline (10 g./ton) were given to females and castrates which had previously received creep feed with or without oxytetracycline.

2. Forty-eight pigs were individually fed on the rations from 50 to 200 lb. live-weight, a restricted scale of intake based on live-weight being adopted.

3. Pigs receiving the mixed supplement and those given oxytetracycline alone grew significantly faster and utilised their feed more efficiently than those given oleandomycin alone. Differences between the mixed supplement group and those receiving oxytetracycline were not significant.

4. Treatment with antibiotic, either in the creep feed or after weaning, had no effect on carcass measurements. Females had less depth of fat at the shoulder, mid-back and loin compared with castrates and the carcasses were significantly longer.

5. Visceral weights were not influenced by antibiotic treatment but pigs supplemented with oleandomycin had a shorter gut than those receiving a combination of antibiotics. There was a significant reduction in gut weight n i pigs which had received unsupplemented creep feed but no consistent effect on the thickness of the intestine wall or gut diameter. Females had significantly heavier kidneys and spleens than castrates.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , October 1964 , pp. 363 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1964

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

Bohman, V. R., Hunter, J. E. & McCormick, J., 1954. The effect of aureomycin upon utilisation of graded levels of alfalfa by swine. J. Anim. Sci., Xi: 977. (Soc. Proc.)Google Scholar
Braude, R., Coates, M. E., Davies, M. K., Harrison, C. F. & Mitchell, K. G., 1955. The effect of aureomycin on the gut of the pig. Brit. J. Nutr., 9: 363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawford, W. P., 1959. New developments in antibiotics for poultry and livestock. Proc. Pfizer 1th Res. Conf., Indiana, 1959.Google Scholar
Hawbaker, J. A., Diaz, F., Speer, V. G., Hays, V. W. & Catron, D. V., 1960. The effect of oleandomycin on the performance of the growing pig. J. Anim. Sci., 19: 800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A. S., Hepburn, W. R., Cadenhead, A. & Boyne, A. W., 1962. The effect of variation of protein quality and protein level in diets on the performance of young pigs. Anim. Prod., 4: 185.Google Scholar
Magruder, D. A., Sherman, W. C., Reynolds, W. M. & Lutter, H. G., 1958. A new antibiotic, oleandomycin in swine rations. J. Anim. Sci., 17: 1177. (Soc. Proc.)Google Scholar
Robinson, K. L., 1962. The value of antibiotics for growth of pigs. In Antibiotics in Agriculture. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Smith, W. C., Adam, J. L. & Tonks, H. M., 1963. The supplementation of pig diets with oleandomycin. Anim. Prod., 5: 201.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. H. & Harrington, G., 1955. Influence of dietary antibiotic supplements on the visceral weights of pigs. Nature, Lond., 175: 643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vernon, J., Mercer, E. A. & Rosen, G. S., 1962. The effects on production efficiency of oleandomycin and oxytetracycline fed at low levels in the diet of heavy pigs. Anim. Prod., 4: 279.Google Scholar