Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T11:36:50.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some effects of dietary penicillin and zinc bacitracin on the performance of bacon pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. W. Holme  and
K. L. Robinson
D. W. Holme
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and Queen's University, Belfast
Get access

Summary

Three experiments were carried out to evaluate zinc bacitracin as compared with penicillin, as a feed supplement for bacon pigs. The first experiment compared pig performance on a control diet with performance on the control diet supplemented with penicillin, 5 g./ton, or with zinc bacitracin, 10 g./ton. Experiment 2 compared the control diet with penicillin at 10 g./ton and zinc bacitracin at 10 g./ton with pigs housed in a different piggery. Experiment 3 compared the control diet with penicillin at 10 g./ton and zinc bacitracin at two levels, 10 g./ton and 5 g./ton. In none of the experiments was there any significant response to penicillin in terms of rate of gain, feed conversion efficiency or carcass composition. In the first experiment there was a small but significant improvement in rate of gain up to 100 lb. live-weight and for the whole experimental period by the pigs receiving 10 g./ton of zinc bacitracin. There was no significant response in feed conversion efficiency or carcass measurements. In the other two experiments there was no response to zinc bacitracin. The implications of the results are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , October 1963 , pp. 251 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1963

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

Abraham, E. P., & Florey, H. W., 1949. In Antibiotics, Vol. I, Chap. 1, p. 462. Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
Braude, R., Wallace, H. D., & Cunha, T. J., 1953. The value of antibiotics in the nutrition of swine: a review. Antibiotics and Chemotherapeutics, 3: 271.Google ScholarPubMed
Clausen, H., 1961. The influence of various feed ingredients and mixes upon the effect of antibiotics as feed supplements. Proc. Europ. Symp. Antibiotics in Anim. Nutr., Oslo.Google Scholar
Goldberg, H. S., & Luckey, T. D., 1959. Mode of action of polypeptide antibiotics. In Antibiotics—Their Chemistry and Non-Medical Uses. Van Nostrand Co. Inc., London.Google Scholar
Homb, T., 1959. A long-term experiment with antibiotic-supplemented rations for bacon pigs. Agric. Coll. Norway, Inst. Anim. Nutr. Rpt. No. 96. (English summary.)Google Scholar
Luckey, T. D., 1959. Antibiotics in nutrition. In Antibiotics—Their Chemistry and Non-Medical Uses. Van Nostrand Co. Inc., London.Google Scholar
Münchberg, F., 1961. Zinc bacitracin for slaughter pigs. Proc. Europ. Sytnp. Antibiotics in Anim. Nutr., Oslo. (English summary.)Google Scholar
Paine, T. F., 1951. The similarity in action of bacitracin and penicillin. J. Bact., 61: 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regna, P. P., 1959. The chemistry of antibiotics. In Antibiotics—Their Chemistry and Non-Medical Uses. Van Nostrand Co. Inc., London.Google Scholar
Robinson, K. L., Coey, W. E., & Burnett, G. S., 1954. The use of antibiotics in the food of fattening pigs. J. Sci. Fd Agric., 5: 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, K. L., 1963. The value of antibiotics for growth of pigs. In Antibiotics in Agriculture. Proc. Univ. Notts. 9th Easter Sch., Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W., 1956. Statistical Methods. Iowa State College Press. Ames, la, 5th ed.Google Scholar
Weinberg, E. D., 1959. Enhancement of bacitracin by metallic ions of Group IIB. Antibiotics Annual, 1958–9.Google Scholar