Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T17:37:00.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of three practical rations for growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. Braude ,
Marilyn R. Lyon  and
J. G. Rowell
R. Braude
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
Marilyn R. Lyon
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
J. G. Rowell
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Statistics Group, School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A co-ordinated trial has been carried out at twenty-six centres to compare the effects of three practical rations on performance and carcass quality of fattening pigs. The simplest of these was the ‘Shinfield ration’ (SR) and this was compared with the more elaborate National Pig Progeny Testing Station rations, the ‘old’ ration (OPT) as used until January 1963 and the ‘new’ ration (NPT) as used since January 1963.

The OPT ration was significantly worse than the SR and NPT rations in respect of growth rate and food conversion. The simpler and cheaper SR ration did not differ significantly from the NPT ration. Ration differences were not significant for any carcass measurements.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , February 1965 , pp. 87 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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

Braude, R. (1958). Paper from conference on ‘Scientific principles of feeding farm livestock’, Brighton, 11 1958, p. 168.Google Scholar
Braude, R. & Rowell, J. G. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, S. F., Harrington, G. & Johnson, R. F. (1962). Anim. Prod. 4, 25.Google Scholar