Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:13:19.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The interaction between environment and level of feeding* for pigs from weaning to bacon weight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

I. A. M. Lucas  and
A. F. C. Calder
A. F. C. Calder
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeenshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The rates of growth and efficiencies of food conversion between 45 and 100 lb. live weight of pigs kept to a low plane of feeding were most adversely affected during the winter months by bad housing conditions, wherein the average air temperature was 43° F. On the other hand, this bad housing had no adverse effect upon pigs of a similar size kept to a high plane of feeding.

2. The summer season, with consequently higher environmental temperatures in both good and bad piggeries, only had a significantly beneficial effect upon the rates and efficiencies of growth of pigs of 45–100 lb. live weight kept to a low plane of feeding in a bad piggery. Any effects upon the growth of pigs of similar size kept to a high plane of feeding in either a good or bad piggery or to a low plane of feeding in a good piggery did not approach statistical significance.

3. There was probably some environmental factor other than air temperature or relative humidity which had a beneficial effect on the growth of the pigs kept to a low plane of feeding in the good piggery.

4. It was observed, but not proved, that pigs of 100–200 lb. live weight kept to a high plane of feeding grew rather more efficiently in the bad house than in the good house, despite the higher environmental temperatures in the good house.

5. During the growth period between 45 and 100 lb. live weight the efficiency of food conversion, expressed in pounds t.d.n. required per pound liveweight increase, was better in the well-housed pigs kept to the low plane of feeding than in the highplane pigs housed in either piggery.

6. During the growth period between 100 and 200 lb. live weight the efficiency of food conversion of the well-housed low-plane pigs was significantly better than that for the well-housed high-plane pigs, but was not significantly better than the efficiency of food conversion of the high-plane pigs from the bad piggery.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , June 1955 , pp. 56 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

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

Chirkov, D. I. (1952). Soviet. Zootech. 9, 53.Google Scholar
Collins, R. A., Schreiber, M. & Elvehjem, C. A. (1953). J. Nutr. 49, 589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, E. W. (1941). Sci. Agric. 21, 613.Google Scholar
Crampton, E. W. & Ashton, G. C. (1945). Sci. Agric. 25, 403.Google Scholar
Crampton, E. W. & Ashton, G. C. (1946). Sci. Agric. 26, 43.Google Scholar
Deighton, T. (1937). J. Agric. Sci. 27, 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duckworth, J. & Ellinger, G. M. (1949). Brit. J. Nutr. 3, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlop, G. & West, A. (1942). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 10, 161.Google Scholar
Edin, H. & Helleday, T. (1935). Rep. Central Agric. Res. Inst., Stockh., no. 449.Google Scholar
Ershoff, B. H. (1953). J. Nutr. 49, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, J. S. (1953). Canad. J. Zool. 31, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(Jr)Heitman, H. & Hughes, E. H. (1949). J. Anim. Sci. 8, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglis, J. S. S. & Robertson, A. (1951). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 19, 202.Google Scholar
Kirkwood, J. & Smart, A. B. (1950). Bull. W. Scot. Agric. Coll. no. 146.Google Scholar
Kurelec, V. (1939). Mezögazdas. kutatá;s. 12, 216.Google Scholar
Lucas, I. A. M. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1941). J. Agric. Sci. 31, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzies-Kitchin, A. W. (1937). J. Agric. Sci. 27, 611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzies-Kitchin, A. W. & Taylor, S. (1937). Fm Econ., Oxf., 2, 77.Google Scholar
Mills, C. A. (1941). Amer. J. Physiol. 133, 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, C. A. (1943 a). Arch. Biochem. 1, 73.Google Scholar
Mills, C. A. (1943 b). Arch. Biochem. 2, 159.Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. H., Johnson, B. C., Hamilton, T. S. & Haines, W. T. (1950). J. Nutr. 41, 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, H. H. & Kelley, M. A. R. (1938). J. Agric. Res. 56, 811.Google Scholar
Moustgaard, J. (1952). Proc. 6th Int. Congr. Animal Husbandry, 2, 125.Google Scholar
National Research Council (U.S.A.), Committee on Animal Nutrition (1950). Recommended Nutrient Allowances for Domestic Animals, 2. Recommended Nutrient Allowances for Swine.Google Scholar
Quebec Provincial Feed Board (1953). Feeders Guide and Formulae for Meal Mixtures, 26th ed.Google Scholar
Shanks, P. L. (1942). Vet. Rec. 54, 233.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1952). Bull. Minist. Agric, Lond., no. 48.Google Scholar