Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T11:16:20.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Energy and protein nutrition of early-weaned pigs. 2. effect of energy intake and energy: protein on energy utilisation and body composition of pigs slaughtered at 32 d

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2008

K. J. McCracken ,
S. M. Eddie  and
W. G. Stevenson
K. J. McCracken
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Food Chemistry Research Division, Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland and The Queen's University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Berfast BT9 5PX, N. Ireland
S. M. Eddie
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland Hillsborough, Co Down, N. Ireland
W. G. Stevenson
Affiliation:
Biometrics Division, Department of Agriculture, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, N. Ireland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The effect of energy and protein intake on the nitrogen and energy utilization and carcass composition of artificially-reared pigs was studied between 8 and 32 d of age in an experiment employing a 5 × 3 × 2 factorial design. The factors were initially energy:N value (I) (250, 355, 460, 565 or 670 kJ/g N), rate of increase of I (R) at 8 d intervals (0, 12.5 or 25%) and plane of nutrition (three times daily to appetite or 75% of this intake).

2. The range of energy:N values was obtained by formulating five diets based on dried skim milk, lactose and casein and feeding appropriate combinations of two diets.

3. The metabolizable energy (ME) intake, carcass dry matter (DM) content, carcass protein gain and carcass fat gain exhibited significant (P < 0.001) quadratic responses to I.

4. The carcass fat content in the DM increased from 200 to 342 g/kg (P < 0.001) and the carcass crude protein (N × 6.25) content decreased from 657 to 519 g/kg with increasing level of I (P < 0.001). The fat and protein contents were 309 and 556 g/kg and 242 and 610 g/kg respectively on the high and low plane of nutrition (PN) and were significantly different (P < 0.001).

5. There was a significant I × R interaction in relation to carcass protein gain with the maximum gain occurring at 460 kJ/g N when I was constant and at 355 kJ/g N when R was 25% per 8 d.

6. The proportion of apparent digested N intake retained (N retention (NR): apparent digested N (ADN)) was significantly (P < 0.001) affected by all three factors and there were significant I × R (P < 0.001), I × PN (P < 0.01) and R × R × PN (P < 0.01) interactions. The maximum value of NR:ADN was 0.80.

7. Carcass fat gain and carcass energy gain exhibited quadratic responses to I reaching maximum values at 460 kJ/g N. The energy content of the live-weight gain increased linearly (P < 0.001) from 5.79 to 7.90 MJ/kg with increasing level of I. PN and R also produced significant (P < 0.001) responses the means being respectively 7.52 and 6.39 MJ/kg on the high and low PN and 6.55, 6.94 and 7.38 kJ/kg with increasing value of R.

8. Multiple regression analysis of ME intake on live-weight (W), protein gain (PG) and fat gain (FG) yielded the equation: <m:math><m:mrow><m:mtext>ME</m:mtext><m:mo stretchy="false">(</m:mo><m:mtext>MJ</m:mtext><m:mo stretchy="false">)</m:mo><m:mo>=</m:mo><m:mn>0</m:mn><m:mo>.</m:mo><m:mn>644</m:mn><m:msup><m:mtext>W</m:mtext><m:mrow><m:mn>0</m:mn><m:mo>.</m:mo><m:mn>75</m:mn></m:mrow></m:msup></m:mrow><m:mo>+</m:mo><m:mn>32</m:mn><m:mo>.</m:mo><m:mn>6</m:mn><m:mtext>PG</m:mtext><m:mo>+</m:mo><m:mn>48</m:mn><m:mo>.</m:mo><m:mn>2</m:mn><m:mtext>FG</m:mtext><m:mo>.</m:mo></m:math>

This result is discussed in relation to published values for the energy requirements of the young pig.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , March 1980 , pp. 305 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1980

References

Bohme, H., Gadeken, D. & Oslage, H. J. (1976). Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. publ. no. 19, p. 175.Google Scholar
Bønsdorff Petersen, C. (1970). Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. publ. no. 13, p. 205.Google Scholar
Braude, R., Keal, H. D. & Newport, M. J. (1976). Br. J. Nutr. 35, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R. & Newport, M. J. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 29, 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breirem, K. & Homb, T. (1972). In Handbuch der Tierernähung, vol. 2, p. 547. [Lenkeit, W., Breirem, K. and Crasemann, E., editor]. Hamburg and Berlin: Verlag Paul Parey.Google Scholar
Brouwer, E. (1965). Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. publ. no. 11, p. 441.Google Scholar
Duncan, D. L. (1966). In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition, p. 51. [Abrams, J. T., editor]. London: J. A. Churchill.Google Scholar
Florence, E. & Mitchell, K. G. (1972). Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. 1, 101.Google Scholar
Fuller, M. F. & Boyne, A. W. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, J. W. (1974). Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. publ. no. 14, p. 189.Google Scholar
Jordan, J. W. & Brown, W. O. (1970). Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. publ. no. 13, p. 161.Google Scholar
Jordan, J. W. & Weatherup, S. T. C. (1976 a). Rec. agric. Res. 24, 45.Google Scholar
Jordan, J. W. & Weatherup, S. T. C. (1976 b). Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. publ. no. 19, p. 169.Google Scholar
Kielanowski, J. (1965). Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. publ. no. 11, p. 13.Google Scholar
Kielanowski, J. (1967). Proc. 9th Int. Congr. Anim. Prod., Edinburgh, 1966, p. 212.Google Scholar
Kielanowski, J. (1976). Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. publ. no. 16. p. 207.Google Scholar
Kielanowski, J. & Kotarbinska, M. (1970). Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. publ. no. 13, p. 145.Google Scholar
Kirchgessner, M. & Kellner, B. B. (1972). Archs. Tierernäh. 22, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchgessner, M. & Muller, H. C. (1974). Archs. Tierernäh, 24, 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCracken, K. J. (1973). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32, 66A.Google Scholar
McCracken, K. J. & Eddie, S. M. (1974). Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. publ. no. 14, p. 181.Google Scholar
McCracken, K. J., Eddie, S. M. & Stevenson, W. G. (1980). Br. J. Nutr. 43, 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manners, M. J. & McCrea, M. R. (1963). Br. J. Nutr. 17, 495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, H. L. & Kirchgessner, M. (1974). Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. publ. no. 14.Google Scholar
Nehring, K., Lambe, W., Schwerdtfeger, E., Schiemann, R., Haesler, E. & Hoffmann, L. (1957). Biochem. z. 328, 549.Google Scholar
Newport, M. J. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & McDonald, I. (1970). Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. publ. no. 13, p. 121.Google Scholar
Pullar, J. D. & Webster, A. J. F. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, D. L. & Sarett, H. P. (1969). J. Nutr. 98, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorbek, G. (1970). Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. publ. no. 13, p. 129.Google Scholar
Thorbek, G. (1975). Beretn. Forsøgslab, no. 424.Google Scholar
Walker, D. M. & Norton, B. W. (1971). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 77, 368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Aumaitre, A. & Williams, I. H. (1978). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 91, 681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, A. J. & Groves, T. D. D. (1965). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 45, 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar