Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:53:53.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The early weaning of pigs: I. The effect upon growth of variations in the protein, fat, sucrose, antibiotic, vitamin and mineral contents of diets for pigs of 8–25 lb. live weight and a comparison of wet and dry feeding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

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

Extract

1. The pigs in the three experiments reported were weaned at 10 days old and fed water and drymeal diets ad libitum until they reached 25 lb. live weight. They were housed individually in cages and records were kept of each pig's food consumption and of its live weight every third day.

2. Most of the diets fed were based on roller-dried skim milk, rolled oat groats, white fishmeal, sucrose, dried yeast, cod-liver oil, minerals and antibiotic.

3. Forty-eight pigs were used in Exp. 1, which was designed as a 4 × 2 factorial. Food-conversion efficiency was significantly improved by 10% when the crude protein in the diet was raised from 24 to 29%. Increasing the protein to 34 or 39% brought no further significant improvement. There were no significant differences between growth rates which were attributable to the four levels of protein.

The inclusion of 10% sucrose in the diet did not result in increased food consumption, but there were significant improvements of 8% in growth rate and 10% in food conversion efficiency. There were no treatment interactions.

4. Twenty-four pigs were used in Exp. 2, which was designed as a 2 × 2 factorial. Figs fed a diet containing 7% fat grew 4% faster and 6% more efficiently than others fed a diet containing 3·7% fat, but neither difference approached statistical significance. There was no advantage in feeding the meal as a slop, indeed, there was a tendency for the pigs to scour more than on dry feeding. As in Exp. 1 there was no treatment interaction.

5. Forty-eight pigs were used in Exp. 3, which was designed as a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial. The basal diet contained about 30% crude protein and 10% sucrose.

An increase in the antibiotic level from 18 to 112 mg./lb. diet significantly increased growth rate by 7%, but the 9% increase in efficiency of food conversion was not statistically significant.

The addition of a trace mineral supplement significantly improved rate of gain by 7%, but the 6% increase in efficiency of food conversion was not statistically significant.

The addition of a complex vitamin mixture had no significant effect upon either rate or efficiency of growth.

6. In all three experiments the shape of the growth curve of pigs weaned at 10 days old wag divided into two periods. During the initial ‘check period’, lasting about 10 days, the pigs ate only small amounts of food, grew very slowly, and sometimes scoured. After the ‘check period’ there was a sudden change to the ‘growing period’, during which the pigs ate increasing amounts of meal and grew rapidly.

The only treatment which significantly affected the length of the check period was in Exp. 3, when the addition of the vitamin supplement to a diet containing a high antibiotic level shortened the check period by 3 days but then counteracted this advantage by reducing rate of gain during the growing period.

7. Between 25 lb. weight and 8 weeks of age twenty-four pigs from the experiments reported were fed ad libitum on a dry-meal diet containing 22% crude protein. The average live weight of these pigs at 8 weeks was 49 lb.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , December 1956 , pp. 220 - 234
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

Baker, F., Nasr, H., Morrice, F. & Bruce, J. (1950). J. Path. Bact. 62, 617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauernfiend, J. C., Norris, L. C. & Heuser, G. F. (1942). Poult. Sci. 21, 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, D. E., Ullrey, D. E. & Terrill, S. W. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottomley, A. C. (1944). Biochem. J. 38, v.Google Scholar
Catron, D. V. (1954). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Catron, D. V., Nelson, L. F., Ashton, G. C. & Maddock, H. M. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, R. A., Harper, A. E., Schreiber, M. & Elvehjem, C. A. (1951). J. Nutr. 43, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, E. W. & Ness, O. M. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 357.Google Scholar
De Man, T. J. & Zwiep, I. N. (1955). Voeding, 16, 147.Google Scholar
Deyoe, G. P. & Krider, J. L. (1952). Raising Swine. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Duckworth, J. (1955). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 6, 240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duckworth, J. & Ellinger, G. M. (1949). Brit. J. Nutr. 3, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, M. E., Kon, S. K. & Thomson, S. Y. (1952). Rep. Nat. Inst. Dairy, Reading, p. 88.Google Scholar
Grummer, R. H. & Self, H. L. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 1245.Google Scholar
Hudman, D. B., Speer, V. C., Ashton, G. C. & Catron, D. V. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 1209.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. C., James, M. F. & Krider, J. L. (1948). J. Anim. Sci. 7, 486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. C. & Neumann, A. L. (1948). J. Anim. Sci. 7, 528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, W. P. Jr. & Wiese, A. C. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 244.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. J., Catron, D. V., Combs, G. E. Jr., Ashton, G. C. & Culbertson, C. C. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 1103.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. J., Catron, D. V., Speer, V. C. & Ashton, G. C. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 1214.Google Scholar
McMillan, F. A. & Wallace, H. D. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 993.Google Scholar
National Research Council (U.S.A.). Committee on Animal Nutrition (1953). Recommended Nutrient Allowances for Domestic Animals. 2. Recommended Nutrient Allowances for Swine.Google Scholar
Peo, E. R., Ashton, G. C., Speer, V. C. & Catron, D. V. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 995.Google Scholar
Pritchard, H. & Wraige, D. R. (1953). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 4, 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quebec Provincial Feed Board (1953). Feeders Guide and Formulae for Meal Mixtures, 26th ed.Google Scholar
Reber, E. F., Whitechair, C. K. & MacVicar, R. (1953). J. Nutr. 50, 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sewell, R. F., Sheffy, B. E., Eggert, R. G. & Loosli, J. K. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 597.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1952). Bull. Minist. Agric, Lond., no. 48.Google Scholar