Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:31:55.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Energy and protein nutrition of early-weaned pigs. 1. effect of energy intake and energy: protein on growth, efficiency and nitrogen utilization of pigs between 8–32 d

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2008

K. J. McCracken ,
S. M. Eddie  and
W. G. Stevenson
K. J. McCracken
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Food Chemistry Research Division, Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland and The Queen's University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, Northern Ireland
S. M. Eddie
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co Down, Northern Ireland
W. G. Stevenson
Affiliation:
Biometrics Division, Department of Agriculture, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, Northern Ireland
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. The effect of energy and protein intake on the growth, food efficiency and nitrogen retention of artificially-reared pigs was studied over three 8 d periods between 8–32 d of age in an experiment employing a 5×3×2 factorial design. The factors were initial energy: N value (I; 250, 355, 460, 565 or 670 kJ/g N), rate of increase of 1 at 8 d intervals (0, 12.5 or 25%) and plane of nutrition (three times daily to appetite or 75% of this intake).

2. The range of energy: N values was obtained by formulating five diets based on dried skim milk, lactose and casein and feeding appropriate combinations of two diets. The diets, which were pelleted, contained 100 g maize oil/kg and the gross energy content was approximately 20 MJ/kg.

3. N digestibility was high at all three age intervals, reaching 0.99 on the diet containing the highest dietary crude protein (N × 6.25) level. Metabolic faecal N excretion was found to be 1.1 g/kg dry matter (DM) intake.

4. Growth rate, feed conversion ratio (kg food intake/kg wt gain; FCR), N retention (NR) and the proportion of digested N retained (NR:apparent digested N (ADN)) were significantly (P < 0.001) affected by I values at all age intervals and the responses were quadratic. Response curves were calculated by the least squares method and optimum values of I determined for each of the criteria.

A constant energy:N value of approximately 400 kJ/g N was indicated by growth, FCR and NR optima but the NR:ADN value fell from 0.77 for the 8–16 d period to 0.60 for the 24–32 d period at this I value. It is concluded that a suitable compromise would be an I value of 470 kJ/g N increasing by 10%/week.

5. There was a significant interaction between plane of nutrition and I values on FCR between 16–24 d (P < 0.001) and 8–32 d (P < 0.01) indicating that FCR was better at high protein levels and worse at low protein levels when the diets were fed on the lower plane of nutrition.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , March 1980 , pp. 289 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1980

References

Alexander, V. A. W. (1969). Studies on the nutrition of the neonatal pig. PhD Thesis, Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
Bohme, H., Gadeken, D. & Oslage, J. J. (1976). Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. publ. no. 19. p. 165.Google Scholar
Braude, R., Mitchell, K. G., Newport, M. J. & Porter, J. W. G. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R. & Newport, M. J. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 29, 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddie, S. M. & McCracken, K. J. (1972). 48th A. Rep. Agric. Res. Inst. N. Ireland, p. 27.Google Scholar
Eddie, S. M. & McCracken, K. J. (1973). Eur. Nutr. Conf., Cambridge, July 1973.Google Scholar
Fuller, M. F. & Boyne, A. W. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A. S. (1972). Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 19.Google Scholar
Kellner, B. B. & Kirchgessner, M. (1973). Archs. Tierernähr. 23, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchgessner, M. & Kellner, B. B. (1972). Archs. Tierernähr. 22, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klatt, G. & Wullbrandt, H. (1975). Archs. Tierz. 18, 47.Google Scholar
Lucas, I. A. M. & Lodge, G. A. (1961). Tech, Commun. Commonw. Bur. Anim. Nutr. no. 22.Google Scholar
McCracken, K. J. & Eddie, S. M. (1973). Eur. Nutr. Conf., Cambridge, July 1973.Google Scholar
McCracken, K. J., Eddie, S. M. & Stevenson, W. G. (1980). Br. J. Nutr. 43, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCracken, K. J., Eddie, S. M. & Walker, N. (1979). Anim. Prod. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Manners, M. J. & McCrea, M. R. (1962). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manners, M. J. & McCrea, M. R. (1963). Br. J. Nutr. 17, 493.Google Scholar
Martin, J. & Van der Hyde, H. (1969). Rev. Agric., Brux. 2, 269.Google Scholar
Muller, H. L. & Kirchgessner, M. (1974). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernähr. u. Futtermittelk. 33, 98.Google Scholar
Muller, H. L., Kirchgessner, M. & Kellner, B. B. (1974). Arch. Tierernähr. 24, 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nehring, K., Lambe, W., Schwerdtfeger, E., Schiemann, R., Haesler, E. & Hoffmann, L. (1957). Biochem. Z. 328, 549.Google Scholar
Newport, M. J. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, B. H. (1935). J. biol. Chem. 109, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanschoubroek, F. X., De Wilde, R. & Lampo, P. (1967). Anim. Prod. 9, 67.Google Scholar
Wangsness, P. J. & Soroka, G. H. (1978). J. Nutr. 108, 595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, A. J. & Groves, T. D. D. (1965). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 45, 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyllie, D., Speer, V. C., Ewan, R. C. & Hays, V. W. (1969). J. Anim. Sci. 29, 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar