Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:10:36.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficiency of food conversion and body composition of the preruminant lamb and the young pig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. W. Hodge
R. W. Hodge
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, School of Agriculture, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. A comparison was made of the efficiency of food conversion and body composition of the preruminant lamb and young pig when offered cow's milk supplemented with minerals and vitamins from 2 to 10 weeks of age.

2. The daily voluntary intake of gross energy/kg live weight0·75 of the pigs was significantly greater than that of the lambs. The daily voluntary intake of the lambs decreased from 1895 to 1573 kJ/kg live weight0·75 (453 to 376 kcal/kg0·75) over the experimental period and that for the pigs increased from 2063 to 2519 kJ/kg live weight0·75 (493 to 602 kcal/kg0·75).

3. Of the organic matter of the milk, 0·97–0·98 was digested by both species. Food conversion ratio (kg dry matter milk/kg live-weight gain) did not differ between the species when food was given ad lib. but pigs restricted to 80% of voluntary food intake or to 1255 kJ/kg live weight0·75 (300 kcal/kg0·75) had a lower food conversion ratio than lambs similarly restricted in intake.

4. A 20% reduction in the voluntary intake of gross energy decreased daily protein deposition in the lambs only but decreased daily fat deposition in both species.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , July 1974 , pp. 113 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1974

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock No. 2, Ruminants. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council (1967). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock No. 3, Pigs. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Black, J. L. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 31.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1968). Proc. 2nd World Conf. Anim. Prod. Urbana, Illinois: American Dairy Science Association.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W. & Davidson, J. L. (1966). Anim. Prod. 8, 75.Google Scholar
Davies, J. S., Widdowson, E. M. & McCance, R. A. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, V. R. (1967). In Growth and Demelopment of Mammals (Proceedings, 14th Easter School in Agricultural Science, Nottingham) p. 155 [Lodge, G. A. and Lamming, G. E., editors’. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Guilbert, H. R. & Loosli, J. K. (1949). Congr. int. Zootech. v Paris p. 167.Google Scholar
Jagusch, K. T. & Mitchell, R. M. (1971). N.Z.Jl agric. Res. 14, 434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleiber, M. (1961). The Fire of Life. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. H. & Nelson, A. O. (1963). J. Nutr. 80, 343.Google Scholar
Oslage, H. J. & Fliegel, H. (1965). Publs Eur. Ass. Andna. Prod. no. 11, p. 297.Google Scholar
Payne, P. R. & Wheeler, E. F. (1968). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 27, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, J. T. & Tyrrell, H. F. (1964). Cornell Nutr. Conf. p. 25.Google Scholar
Walker, D. M. & Faichney, G. J. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. M. & Jagusch, K. T. (1967). Publs Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. no. 12, p. 187.Google Scholar