Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:18:44.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutrient interactions in pig nutrition I. Factors affecting the response to vitamin B12 in growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

K. J. Carpenter ,
J. Duckworth ,
I. A. M. Lucas ,
D. H. Shrimpton  and
D. M. Walker
K. J. Carpenter
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland
J. Duckworth
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland
I. A. M. Lucas
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland
D. H. Shrimpton
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland
D. M. Walker
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Growth and feed conversion efficiency of pigs between weaning and 100 lb. live weight were improved by adding a vitamin B12 a supplement to simplified all-plant rations containing, principally, barley and groundnut meal. This response was obtained with less than one-third of the U.S. recommended allowance of vitamin B12 in the rations of growing pigs.

2. No such response was obtained when a vitamin B12 supplement was added to rations containing milling by-products and grass meal.

3. When pigs were fed to a scale based on live weight, those that received an all-plant ration (containing milling by-products and grass meal, and relying on groundnut meal as the main source of supplementary protein to give a total content of 18·4 to 18·8% crude protein) gave 90–93% as good growth as pigs that were fed rations of similar total digestible nutrient content containing 14·5–15·5% crude protein and 3·6 or 7·0% white fish meal. Calculations suggest that such groundnut meal rations may be slightly deficient in lysine, but probably not deficient in tryptophan or ‘cystine + methionine’.

4. When pigs were fed to appetite, those that received rations containing 3·6% white fish meal and no milling by-products or grass meal, ate significantly more than those that had either ‘milling by-products + grass meal’ or no fish meal in their rations; they grew proportionately faster, with no improvement in the efficiency of feed conversion.

5. The carcasses of pigs that had received all-plant rations from weaning to bacon weight were of good quality, and their measurements did not differ from those of pigs that had received fish meal to 100 lb. live weight.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , August 1956 , pp. 435 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

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

Becker, D. E., Lassiter, J. W., Terrill, S. W. & Norton, H. W. (1954 a). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, D. E., Notzold, R. A., Jensen, A. H., Terrill, S. W. & Norton, H. W. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, D. E., Ullrey, D. E. & Terrill, S. W. (1954 b). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, H. R., Rubin, M. & Groschke, A. C. (1948). Proc. 8th World's Poult. Congr. (Copenhagen), p. 187.Google Scholar
Brinegar, M. J., Williams, H. H., Ferris, F. H., Loosli, J. K. & Maynard, L. A. (1950). J. Nutr. 42, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. (1954). Proc. 10th World's Poult. Congr. (Edinburgh), p. 125.Google Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. & Duckworth, J. (1951 a). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. & Duckworth, J. (1951 b). Proc. 9th World's Poult. Congr. (Paris), 2, 18.Google Scholar
Carpenter, K. J., Duckworth, J. & Ellinger, G. M. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J., Ellinger, G. M. & Shrimpton, D. H. (1954). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 13, xx.Google Scholar
Catron, D. V., Richardson, D., Underkofler, L. A., Maddock, H. M. & Friedland, W. C. (1952). J. Nutr. 47, 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Man, T. J. & Zwiep, N. (1955). Voeding, 16, 147.Google Scholar
Evans, R. E. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fingerling, G. (1933). Landwirt. Versuchs. 116, 1.Google Scholar
Kodicek, E. (1949). Brit. J. Nutr. 2, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, I. A. & Calder, A. F. C. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1953). Nutrient Requirements for Swine (Washington).Google Scholar
Pfander, W. H. & Tribble, L. F. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, K. L., Coey, W. E. & Burnett, G. S. (1952). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 3, 448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, K. L., Coey, W. E. & Burnett, G. S. (1954). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 5, 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrimpton, D. H. (1955). Analyst (in the Press).Google Scholar
Van Albada, M., Ubbels, P., Dammers, J. & Frens, A. M. (1951). Versl. Landbouwk. Onderzoek. no. 58, p. 8.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Evans, R. E. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E., Evans, R. E., Turpitt, W. G. & Callow, E. H. (1939). J. Agric. Sci. 29, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar