Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:57:26.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Responses to variations in dietary energy intakes by growing pigs 3. Effect of level of intake of diets of differing protein and fat content on the performance of growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. L. Davies
Affiliation:
University College of North Wales, Bangor
I. A. M. Lucas
Affiliation:
University College of North Wales, Bangor
Get access

Summary

Three diets were given separately, each at four levels of digestible energy (DE) intake, to gilts, castrates and boars growing from 21 to 92 kg live weight. The energy levels were those suggested by the Agricultural Research Council, compared with a 5% increase or 10% or 20% decreases in daily allowance. One diet (ME 18) had 3·0 Meal DE/kg and 18·2% crude protein; the other two (HE 16 and HE 19) had 3·26 Meal DE/kg and 16·1% or 19·3% crude protein.

They were given unchanged throughout the experiment. Responses to change in daily DE intake were not affected by sex or diet, except in shoulder fat thickness. Feed eaten per kg gain did not vary by more than 4% over the intake levels investigated, and no difference was significant. On average, each reduction in daily intake below the ARC+5% allowance led to an increase of 1·2 percentage units of carcass lean and a decrease of 1·3 percentage units of carcass fat.

In comparison with HE 16, the higher protein diet HE 19 gave improved feed conversion efficiency and growth rate, particularly in gilts. It did not cause significant changes in carcass measurements. In comparison with ME 18, HE 19 gave more efficient conversion of DE to weight gain, and faster growth.

Boars required less feed per kg gain and had faster growth rates and leaner carcasses than gilts, which were superior to castrates. There was a high incidence of unpleasant odour in fat from boars, but some was also detected in that from gilts and castrates.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1972

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
Armstrong, D. G. and Ross, I. P. 1968. Principles of fat utilisation. Proc. 2nd Nutr. Conf. for Feed Manufacturers, Univ. Nottingham., pp. 221. J. and A. Churchill Ltd, London.Google Scholar
Barber, R. S., Braude, R., Mitchell, K. G. and Pittman, R. J. 1972. Effect of level of feed intake on the performance and carcass composition of growing pigs. Anim. Prod. 14: 199208.Google Scholar
Blair, R. and English, P. R. 1965. The effect of sex on growth and carcass quality in the bacon pig. agric. Sci., Camb. 64: 169176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, A. G. and Cooke, B. C. 1970. The nutritive value of separated milk for pigs. 2. The effects of different amounts on performance to 90 kg live weight. Anim. Prod. 12: 125137.Google Scholar
Cooke, R., Lodge, G. A. and Lewis, D. 1972. Influence of energy and protein concentration in the diet on the performance of growing pigs. 3. Response to differences in levels of both energy and protein. Anim. Prod. 14: 219228.Google Scholar
Davies, J. L. and Lucas, I. A. M. 1972. Responses to variations in energy intakes by growing pigs. 2. Effects on feed conversion efficiency of changes in level of intake above maintenance. Anim. Prod. 15: 117125.Google Scholar
Lodge, G. A., Hardy, B. and Lewisd, D. 1972. Influence of energy and protein concentration in the diet on the performance of growing pigs. 4. Effects of sex on response to dietary protein level. Anim. Prod. 14: 229239.Google Scholar
Lucas, I. A. M. and Calder, A. F. C. 1956. The response of different types of pigs to varying levels of feeding from weaning to bacon weight, with particular reference to carcass quality. agric. Sci., Camb. 47: 287323.Google Scholar
Lucas, I. A. M. and Miles, K. L. 1970. Comparison of protein concentrations in diets given unchanged to pigs from 18 to 93 kg live weight. Anim. Prod. 12: 403412.Google Scholar
Plimpton, R. F. 1966. Diethylstilbestrol implantation of male swine: effect during extended growth on carcass composition, muscle quality and palatability. Diss. Abstr. 26: 3565.Google Scholar
Prescott, J. H. D. and Lamming, G. E. 1964. The effects of castration on meat production in cattle, sheep and pigs. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 63: 341357.CrossRefGoogle 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
Self, H. L. 1957. The problem of pork odour. Proc. 9th Res. Conf. Amer. Meat. Inst. Found., Univ. Chicago.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1967. Statistical Methods. 6th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, la.Google Scholar
Vanschoubroek, F., De Wilde, R. and Lampo, PH. 1967. The quantitative effects of feed restriction in fattening pigs on weight gain, efficiency of feed utilisation and backfat thickness. Anim. Prod. 9: 6774.Google Scholar
Williams, L. D., Pearson, A. M. and Webb, N. B. 1963. Incidence of sex odour in boars, sows, barrows and gilts. Anim. Sci. 22: 166168.Google Scholar
Wong, W. C., Boylan, W. J. and Stothers, S. C. 1968. Effects of dietary protein level and sex on swine performance and carcass traits. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 48: 383388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar