Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:58:32.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of variations in the energy and protein status of the diet upon productive efficiency in the pig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 1961

R. A. Costain  and
J. T. Morgan
R. A. Costain
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington
J. T. Morgan
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington
Get access

Extract

A feeding trial is described in which 32 individually-fed Large White pigs were used to investigate the effects of variations in the protein and energy status of the diet on growth, efficiency of food utilisation and carcass characteristics. The salient features of the finding were:

1. Over the weight interval 50–100 lb., it appeared that 1·0% was a more appropriate level of dietary lysine than one of the order of 0·75%; the former figure corresponded to a level of 5·8% of dietary protein.

2. In the ‘finishing phase’ of growth from 100–200 lb. the pig clearly tolerates wider energy : protein ratios than is the case in earlier life, with advantageous results in terms of growth performance but deleterious effects on carcass suitability.

3. An increase in dietary energy status in the ‘finishing phase’ yields growth responses only if protein level is appropriately adjusted.

4. It is suggested that Large White pigs require a level of 0·5–0·6% of dietary lysine in the ‘finishing’ period.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , June 1961 , pp. 199 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1961

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

Abernathy, R. P., Sewell, R. F., & Tarpley, R. L., 1958. Interrelationships of protein, lysine and energy in diets for growing swine. J. Anim. Sci., 11: 635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, D. M., McCampbell, H. C., & Neville, W. E. Jr., 1958. The performance and carcass characteristics of growing-fattening swine as affected by ration levels of protein and inedible fats. J. Anim. Sci., 11: 1165 (Soc. Proc).Google Scholar
Becker, D. E., 1958. Feedstuff's, 30: 88. (Cited by Braude R., 1958. Scientific Principles of Feeding Farm Live Stock. Farmer & Stock-breeder, London.)Google Scholar
Bowland, J. P., & Berg, R. T., 1959. Influence of strain and sex on the relationships of protein to energy in the rations of growing and finishing bacon pigs. Canad. J. Anim. Sci., 39: 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinegar, M. J., Williams, H. H., Ferris, F. H., Loosli, J. K., & Maynard, L. A., 1950. J. Nutr., 42: 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clawson, A. J., Blumer, T. N., Smith, F. H., & Barrick, E. R., 1959. The influence of energy-protein ratio in the ration on performance, ration digestibility and carcass characteristics of swine. J. Anim. Sci., 18: 1492 (Soc. Proc).Google Scholar
Crampton, E. W., Lloyd, L. E., & Mackay, V. G., 1957. The calorie value of TDN. J. Anim. Sci., 16: 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Man, T. H. J., & Zwiep, N., 1955. [Amino acid content of a number of feedstuffs.] Voeding, 16: 147. (In Dutch).Google Scholar
Evans, R. E., 1958. Nutrition of the bacon pig. XIX. The requirement of the bacon pig for certain essential amino acids. J. agric. Sci., 50: 230–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraps, G. S., 1946. Composition and productive energy of poultry feeds and rations. Texas Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull., No. 678.Google Scholar
Guttridge, D. G. A., 1958. Some aspects of the energy and protein nutrition of the broiler. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. R., Hogan, A. G., & Ashworth, U. S., 1936. Utilisation of energy at different levels of protein intake. Missouri Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull., No. 246.Google Scholar
Kennington, M. H., Perry, T. W., & Beeson, W. M., 1958. Effect of adding animal fat to swine rations. J. Anim. Sci., 17: 1166 (Soc. Proc).Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. H., & Hamilton, T. S., 1936. The balancing of rations with respect to protein. Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod., p. 133.Google Scholar
Noland, P. R., & Scott, K. W., 1960. Effect of varying protein and energy intakes on growth and carcass quality of swine. J. Anim. Sci., 19: 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T. B., Mendel, L. B., & Ferry, E. L., 1919. A method of expressing numerically the growth promoting value of proteins. J. biol. Chem., 37: 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, H. R., & Baldini, J. T., 1956. Effect of dietary protein level on the methionine-energy relationship in broiler diets. Poultry Set, 35: 1168.Google Scholar
Schwartz, H. G., Taylor, M. W., & Fisher, H., 1958. The effect of dietary energy concentration and age on the lysine requirement of growing chicks. J. Nutr., 65: 25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sewell, R. F. & Carmon, J. L., 1959. Effect of variations in dietary energy density on carcass value in swine. J. Anim. Sci., 15: 1483 (Soc. Proc).Google Scholar
Skipitaris, C. N., Warner, R. G., & Loosli, J. K., 1957. The effect of added sucrose on the digestibility of protein and fiber by swine. J. Anim. Sci., 16: 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W., 1956. Statistical Methods. Iowa State College Press, Ames. 5th ed.Google Scholar
Wishart, J., 1950. Field trials II: The analysis of covariance. Comm. Bur. Plant Breed. Gen. Tech. Comm., No. 15.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E., 1957. Rations for livestock. Min. Agric. Fish. Bull., No. 48.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E., & Evans, R. E., 1948. Nutrition of the bacon pig. XIII. The minimum level of protein intake consistent with the maximum rate of growth (Part 5). J. agric. Sci., 38: 354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E., & Evans, R. E., 1951. Nutrition of the bacon pig. XIV. The determination of the relative supplemental values of vegetable protein. J. agric. Sci., 41: 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar