Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:44:23.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A growth and economic comparison of two crosses of pigs when fed ad libitum and to a scale and slaughtered at two weights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. L. Frape
Affiliation:
Spillers Ltd, Kennett Nutritional Centre, Bury Rd, Kennett, Suffolk
J. Wilkinson
Affiliation:
Spillers Ltd, Kennett Nutritional Centre, Bury Rd, Kennett, Suffolk
L. G. Chubb
Affiliation:
Spillers Ltd, Kennett Nutritional Centre, Bury Rd, Kennett, Suffolk
K. L. Wolf
Affiliation:
Spillers Ltd, Research and Development Farm, Middle Aston, Oxon.
Get access

Summary

Weaner Hampshire × Landrace × Large White (Hampshire cross) and Landrace × Landrace × Large White (Landrace cross) pigs were given combinations of three diets differing in crude protein content (high: H, low: Land very low: vl). Hampshire cross pigs at 90 kg, both under ad libitum and restricted feeding had greater rates of gain and eye muscle measurements and shorter carcasses than Landrace cross pigs, but were fatter after ad libitum feeding and more efficient food converters after restricted feeding. The HLL treatment led to improved gain and food conversion compared to the LLH or LLL treatment, whereas the LLH treatment led to larger eye muscle measurements. The LvlH treatment led to greater efficiency and eye-muscle area than treatment Lvlvl at 114 kg. An economic analysis was carried out to assess the relative profitability of slaughtering at a range of live weights. Curves were fitted to the data on food intake and live weight. Values were assumed for major costs, and a seven-day interval was allowed between batches of pigs. The calculations indicated that the H diet led to a slight increase in monetary return per pig per day when it was given in the post-weaning period to pigs fed to a scale. Although the Hampshire cross pigs showed a response to the H diet in the finishing period when slaughtered either at 90 or 114 kg, their calculated return was not increased. Ad libitum feeding led to a greater return for heavy but not, on average, for bacon pigs. Maximum return occurred at slaughter between 70 and 115 kg live weight and was only margin-ally greater for restricted baconers at 90 kg than for ad libitum heavy pigs at 110–115 kg. However, return as a percentage of working plus fixed capital was greater for baconers, but the ratio rose throughout the range of hypothetical slaughter weights in both groups. In-clusion of the cost of borrowing money had a negligible effect on the slaughter weight for maximum return with pigs managed in batches.

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

Battese, G. E., Duloy, J. H., Holder, J. M. and Wilson, B. R. 1968. The determination of optimal rations for pigs fed separated milk and grain. J. agric. Econ. 19: 355364.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
Braude, R., Townsend, M. Jill and Harrington, G. 1963. A comparison of litter-mate pigs slaughtered at 200 lb and 260 lb live weight. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 61: 209220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, S. F. 1963a. A comparison of pigs slaughtered at three different weights. I. Carcass quality and performance. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 60: 1926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, S. F. 1963b. A comparison of pigs slaughtered at three different weights. II. Association between dissection results, various measurements and visual assessments. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 60: 2729.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
Davis, R. H., Lodge, G. A. and Lewis, D. 1965. Protein allowances for bacon pigs receiving fat-supplemented diets. Anim. Prod. 7: 285 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. and Yates, F. 1953. Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research. 4th ed.Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Frape, D. L., Wolf, K. L., Dickins, J. C. and Chubb, L. G. 1968. An economic assess-ment of growth and food intake of Landrace and Hampshire-cross pigs. Anim. Prod. 10: 244 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
King, J. W. B. 1965. Crossbreeding experiments with Lacombe and Hampshire boars. Anim. Prod. 7: 279 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Ridgeon, R. F. 1960. University of Cambridge School of Agriculture, Farm Economics Branch Report, No. 52.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. W. 1965. The protein and energy nutrition of the pig. V. The effect of varying the protein and energy levels in the ‘finishing diets’ of heavy pigs. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 65: 405–09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, N., Holme, D. W. and Forbes, T. J. 1968. The effect of rate of gain during the growing and finishing periods on the feed effciency and carcass composition of the pig. I. Rate of gain during the growing period from 18 to 57 kg live weight. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 71: 311318.Google Scholar
Walker, N., Holme, D. W. and Forbes, T. J. 1968. The effect of rate of gain during the growing and finishing periods on the feed efficiency and carcass composition of the pig. II. Contrasting patterns of growth produced by different rates of gain from 20 to 55 kg and 55 to 87 kg live weight. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 71: 319326.Google Scholar
Young, L. G., Ashton, G. G., Forshaw, R. P. and Ingram, R. H. 1968. Relationship of dietary protein levels to performance and carcass merit of market swine. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 48: 7181.Google Scholar