Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:18:35.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of oxytetracycline and copper sulphate, separately and together, in the rations of growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. Braude ,
M. Jill Townsend ,
G. Harrington  and
J. G. Rowell
R. Braude
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfleld, Reading
M. Jill Townsend
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfleld, Reading
G. Harrington
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Statistics Group, School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
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

1. A co-ordinated trial has been carried out at twenty-one centres to study the effects of feeding to growing pigs oxytetracycline (10 g./ton) and copper sulphate (2 lb./ton) separately and together. Fifteen centres repeated the test and thus there was a total of thirty-six pens with 245 pigs on each of the four treatments.

2. Growth rate and efficiency of food conversion were significantly improved by addition to the ration of copper sulphate (9·7 and 7·9% respectively) and of oxytetracycline (3·1 and 2·3% respectively). The improvement due to copper sulphate was significantly greater than that due to oxytetracycline. There was no further improvement when both supplements were fed together.

3. The cold dead weight of the pigs was significantly increased by the two supplements, the carcasses were shorter, and the streaks thicker. Supplementation with oxytetracycline resulted in slightly increased fat over the eye muscle and supplementation with copper resulted in increased depth of eye muscle. Percentage yields of fore-end, middle and gammon were not affected by either supplement.

4. None of the treatment × centre interactions was significant.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 1962 , pp. 251 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

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

Agricultural Research Council Report, no. 13 (1953). London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Barber, R. S., Braude, R. & Mitchell, K. G. (1955). Brit. J. Nutr. 9, 378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, R. S., Braude, R. & Mitchell, K. G. (1960). Brit. J. Nutr. 14, 499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, R. S., Braude, R., Mitchell, K. G. & Cassidy, J. (1955). Chem & Ind. p. 601.Google Scholar
Bellis, D. B. (1961). Anim. Prod. 3, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R. & Rowell, J. G. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Townsend, M. J., Harrington, G. & Rowell, J. G. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 51, 208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Townsend, M. J., Harrington, G. & Rowell, J. G. (1960). J. Agric. Sci. 55, 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Townsend, M. J., Harrington, G. & Rowell, J. G. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 57, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Wallace, H. D. & Cunha, T. J. (1953). Antibiot. & Chemother. 3, 271.Google Scholar
Dammers, J. & van der Grift, J. (1959). Versl. Rijkslandb Proefst., 's Grav. 65. 12.Google Scholar
Hawbaker, J. A., Speer, V. C., Hays, V. W. & Catron, D. V. (1961). J. Anim. Sci. 20, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jukes, T. H., Stokstad, E. L. R., Taylor, R. R., Cunha, T. J., Edwards, H. M. & Meadows, G. B. (1950). Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 26, 324.Google Scholar
Lucas, I. A. M. (1957). Vet. Rec. 69, 233.Google Scholar
Lucas, I. A. M. & Calder, A. F. C. (1957 a). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 16, i.Google Scholar
Lucas, I. A. M. & Calder, A. F. C. (1957 b). J. Agric. Sci. 49, 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokstad, E. L. R. (1954). Physiol. Rev. 34, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar