Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:14:48.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The early weaning of pigs V. The inclusion of digestive enzymes and antibiotics in diets for pigs weaned at 6–7 lb. live weight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. F. C. Calder ,
G. A. Lodge  and
R. Blair
A. F. C. Calder
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen
G. A. Lodge
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen
R. Blair
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Dry-meal diets for pigs weaned at 6–7 lb. mean live weight and 6·9 days mean age were supplemented with antibiotic, pepsin and an α-amylase preparation according to a factorial design involving sixty-four pigs on eight treatments. Antibiotic was included in the respective diets from weaning to 40 lb. live weight and the enzymes from weaning to 25 lb. live weight.

2. Antibiotic supplementation gave a 12·5% increase in rate of growth from weaning to 40 lb. P < 0·001) by reducing the incidence of scour and increasing food consumption from weaning to 25 lb. Antibiotic exerted no effect upon efficiency of food conversion.

3. Pepsin supplementation increased the incidence of scour and reduced rate of growth by 3·7% whilst being fed (P < 0·1) and by 8·6% after it was omitted at 25 lb. live weight (P < 0·01). Efficiency of food conversion was reduced by 5·5% when pepsin was fed (P < 0·05) and by 4·6% after it was omitted at 25 lb. live weight (P < 0·1).

4. α-Amylase appeared to exert little influence upon either growth rate or efficiency of food conversion except in the presence of pepsin. It appeared to counteract the harmful effects of pepsin on growth rate from weaning to 25 lb. and on food conversion efficiency from 25 to 40 lb. This resulted in a 5·5% increase in growth rate during the first period (P < 0·01) and 5·7% improvement in food conversion efficiency during the second period (P < 0·05).

5. The overall effects of antibiotic, pepsin and α-amylase supplementation upon time taken to reach 40 lb. live weight were a reduction of 5·6 days, an increase of 3·8 days and a reduction of 3·9 days, respectively.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , August 1959 , pp. 130 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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

Alsmeyer, W. L., Combs, G. E. Jr. & Wallace, H. D. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 1040.Google Scholar
Catron, D. V., Baker, R. O. & Hartman, P. A. (1957). Proc. 9th Res. Conf. Amer. Meat Instit. p. 23.Google Scholar
Cunningham, H. M. & Brisson, G. T. (1957 a, b). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 370, 568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, L. J., Becker, D. E., Jensen, A. H. & Terrill, S. W. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 1039.Google Scholar
Hill, E. G. & Larson, N. L. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 1116.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. J., Catron, D. V., Liu, C. H., Speer, V. C. & Ashton, G. C. (1955). J. Agric. Fd. Chem. 3, 1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, C. J., Catron, D. V., Speer, V. C. & Ashton, G. C. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 1214.Google Scholar
Lucas, I. A. M. (1956). Pig Breed. Gaz. no. 87, p. 50.Google Scholar
Lucas, I. A. M., Calder, A. F. C. & Smith, H. (1959). J. Agric. Sci. 53, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesheim, R. O. & Johnson, B. C. (1950). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., N.Y., 75, 709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesheim, R. O., Krider, J. L. & Johnson, B. C. (1950 a). J. Anim. Sci. 9, 664.Google Scholar
Nesheim, R. O., Krider, J. L. & Johnson, B. C. (1950 b). Arch. Biochem. 27, 240.Google Scholar
Noland, P. R., Stevenson, E. L., Nelson, T. S. & Tucker, D. L. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 1059.Google Scholar
Schendel, H. E. & Johnson, B. C. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 775.Google Scholar
Schendel, H. E. & Johnson, B. C. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 88.Google Scholar
Schendel, H. E. & Johnson, B. C. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheffy, B. E., Grummer, R. H., Phillips, P. H. & Bohstedt, G. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. & Lucas, I. A. M. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 220.Google Scholar
Smith, H. & Lucas, I. A. M. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 49, 409.Google Scholar
Wahlstrom, R. C. (1958). South Dakota Farm and Home Research. Vol. 9, no. 3, p. 3.Google Scholar
Wahlstrom, R. C. & Johnson, B. C. (1951). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., N.Y., 78, 112.Google Scholar
Wahlstrom, R. C.Terrill, S. W. & Johnson, B. C. (1950). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., N.Y., 75, 710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, W. L., Owen, B. D., Elliot, R. F. & Jukes, T. H. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 781.Google Scholar