Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:29:12.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methods of Experimentation in Animal Nutrition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

George Dunlop
George Dunlop
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture Research Scholar. (From the Animal Nutrition Institute, School of Agriculture, Cambridge.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The unsatisfactory nature of the methods adopted in feeding experiments at Animal Nutrition Research Institutes has been shown to be due to the neglect of the worker to control variable factors, other than those being investigated, which affect the growth rate of his animals.

It has been proved that age, sex (females and castrated males), condition and previous growth rate have no effect on the rate of live-weight increase of swine in the Cambridge University herd, and the basis on which animals are allotted to groups to ensure homogeneity is fallacious.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , October 1933 , pp. 580 - 614
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1933

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

(1)Ackerson, C. W. and Mussehl, F. E.Sex differences in the normal growth of chicks. J. Agric. Res. (1930), 40, 863.Google Scholar
(2)Blackwood, J. H. and Stirling, J. D.The nutritive properties of milk in relation to pasteurisation. Hannah Dairy Res. Inst. Bull. (1933), No. 5.Google Scholar
(3)Breirem, K.Kontroll-opgaver som grunnlag for fôrung, bruksdyrutvalgog alvsarbeide. Tidsskr.f. d. norske Landbruk (1931), 38, 183.Google Scholar
(4)Brouwer, E.Über die Zuverlässigkeit von Fütterungsversuchen mit Milchvieh. Biedermanns Zentralbl. B. Tiernahrung (1931), 3, 311.Google Scholar
(5)Campbell, H. L.A nutritional investigation with discussion of statistical interpretation. J. Amer. Diet. Assoc. (1931), 7, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Carroll, W. E.Group feeding as a method of livestock experimentation. Proc. Amer. Soc. of An. Prod. 1930 (Jan. 1931), p. 34.Google Scholar
(7)Carroll, W. E. and Mitchell, H. H.Results of feeding copper as in paired-feeding experiment. Proc. Amer. Soc. of An. Prod. 1927 (Jan. 1928), p. 73.Google Scholar
(8)Committee On Methods Of Investigation. Summary of recommendations on methods of investigation. Proc. Amer. Soc. of An. Prod. 1932 (Jan. 1933), p. 380.Google Scholar
(9)Crampton, E. W.Individual feeding for the comparative feeding trial. Proc. Amer. Soc. of An. Prod. 1930 (Jan. 1931), p. 56.Google Scholar
(10)Crampton, E. W.Statistical analysis of comparative feeding trial data. Sci. Agric. (1931), 11, 281.Google Scholar
(11)Crampton, E. W.Estimating statistically the significance of differences in comparative feeding trials. Sci. Agric. (1932), 13, 16.Google Scholar
(12)Ceowther, C.The work of the Harper Adams College Pig-Feeding Experimental Station. J. Roy. Agric. Soc. (1931), 92, 1.Google Scholar
(13)Donaldson, H. H.The rat. Memoirs of the Wistar Inst. of Anatomy and Biology, No. 6. Philadelphia (1924).Google Scholar
(14)Engledow, F. L. and Yule, G., Udny. The Principles and Practice of Yield Trials. Emp. Cotton Growing Corp. (1926).Google Scholar
(15)Ellis, N. R. and Zellee, J. H. Utilisation of feed by swine as affected by level of intake. Proc. Amer. Soc. of An. Prod. 1931 (Jan. 1932), p. 270.Google Scholar
(16)Evvard, J. M. and Culbertson, C. C.Studies in iodine feeding. Iowa Sta. Res. Bull. (1925), No. 86.Google Scholar
(17)Evvard, J. M., Culbertson, C. C. and Snedecor, G. W. How many animals per experimental lot? Proc. Amer. Soc. of An. Prod. 1928 (Jan. 1929), p. 161.Google Scholar
(18)Evvard, J. M., Snell, M. G., Culbertson, C. C. and Snedecor, G. W. Correlations between daily gains and feed requirements of growing and fattening swine. Proc. Amer. Soc. of An. Prod. 1927 (Jan. 1928), p. 85.Google Scholar
(19)Ferrin, E. F. Individual feeding compared with group feeding of pigs. Proc. Amer. Soc. of An. Prod. 1931 (Jan. 1932), p. 267.Google Scholar
(20)Forbes, E. B. and Grindley, H. S.On the formulation of methods of experimentation in animal production. Bull, of the Nat. Acad. of Sciences, 6, Pt. 2, No. 33, 1.Google Scholar
(21)Hale, R. W.Experimental errors in chicken rearing experiments. J. Agric. Sci. (1931), 21, 716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(22)Hammond, J.Growth and development of mutton qualities in sheep. Biol. Monos. and Mans. 10 (1932), 114. Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
(23)Hammond, J.Pigs for pork and pigs for bacon. Pig Breeders Annual (1933–4), 13, 28.Google Scholar
(24)Hendricks, W. A.Fitting the curve of diminished increment to feed consumption to live weight growth curves. Science (1931), 74, 290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(25)Hendricks, W. A., Jull, M. A. and Titus, H. W.A possible physiological interpretation of the law of diminishing increment. Science (1931), 73, 427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(26)Hendricks, W. A. and Titus, H. W.A note on Wood and Capstick's method of calculating the maintenance requirement of the adult sheep. J. Agric. Sci. (1931), 21, 726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(27)Holmes, A. D., Piggott, M. G. and Campbell, P. A.The influence of sex on the rate of growth of chicks. Poultry Sci. (1932), 11, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(28)Honcamp-Rostock, F.Aufgaben, Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der landwirtschaftlicher Futterungslehre. Zuchtungsk. (1931), 6, 209.Google Scholar
(29)Jull, M. A. and Titus, H. W.Growth of chickens in relation to feed consumption. J. Agric. Res. (1928), 36, 541.Google Scholar
(30)Krallinger, H. F. and Chodzresner, M.Studien über die Variabilität der Angle zur Fütterverwertung bei Jungmasthähnchen. Landw. Jahrb. (1932), 75, 715.Google Scholar
(31)Lush, J. L. Interpreting the results of group-feeding experiments. Proc. Amer. Soc. of An. Prod. 1930 (Jan. 1931), p. 44.Google Scholar
(32)Lush, J. L.Predicting gains in feeder cattle and pigs. J. Agric. Res. (1931), 42, 853.Google Scholar
(33)Mccandlish, A. C. and Black, A. N.Pasteurised milk for calves. Scottish Farmer (1933), No. 2086, 41, 18.Google Scholar
(34)Mitchell, H. H. The paired-feeding method; its value and limitations in livestock experimentation. Proc. Amer. Soc. of An. Prod. 1930 (Jan. 1931), p. 63.Google Scholar
(35)Mitchell, H. H.Editorial Review—Some essentials of a good nutrition experiment. J. Nutrition (1931), 4, 525.Google Scholar
(36)Mitchell, H. H., Card, L. E. and Hamilton, T. S.A technical study of the growth of White Leghorn chickens. Ill. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. (1931), No. 367, 83.Google Scholar
(37)Mitchell, L. A. and Grindley, H. S.The element of uncertainty in the interpretation of feeding experiments. Ill. Agric. Exp. Sla. Bull. (1913), No. 165, 461.Google Scholar
(38)Olson, F. C. and Bull, S.Effect of sex on pork products. Nat. Provisioner (1931), 85, No. 18, 17.Google Scholar
(39)Paterson, W. G. R.Cattle feeding—relative value of swedes, potatoes, dried sugar-beet pulp and silage in beef production. Trans. High, and Agric. Sci. of Scot. (1933), 45(N.S.), 23.Google Scholar
(40)Pratt, A. D.A study of methods used in conducting a silage feeding experiment. J. Dairy Sci. (1932), 15, 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(41)Robison, W. J.Full and limited feeding of pigs on pasture. Proc. Amer. Soc. of An. Prod. 1931 (Jan. 1932), p. 286.Google Scholar
(42)Rothamsted Exp. Sta. Harpenden. Experiment in progress (June 1933).Google Scholar
(43)Sanders, H. G.The variation in milk yield caused by season of the year, service, age and dry period and their elimination. J. Agric. Sci. (1927), 17, 339, 502; 18, 46, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(44)Schroeder, C. H. and Laweence, H. B.The number of chicks required to demonstrate growth differences. Poultry Sci. (1932), 11, 208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(45)Sheehy, E. J. and Senior, B. J.Mineral metabolism of the pig and the addition of inorganic mineral supplements to the pig's diet. Agric. J. of Ireland (1931), 30, 1.Google Scholar
(46)Snedecor, G. W. and Culbertson, C. C.An improved design for experiments with groups of animals whose outcome may be estimated. Proc. Amer. Soc. of An. Prod. 1932 (Jan. 1933), p. 35.Google Scholar
(47)Titus, H. W. and Jull, M. A.The growth of R.I.R.'s and the effect of feeding skim milk on the constants of growth curves. J. Agric. Res. (1928), 36, 515.Google Scholar
(48)Weigner, Georg. The basis of feeding theories. Conference Papers Internat. Dairy Congress (1931), Sect. 1, 349.Google Scholar
(49)Wendt, Georg Von. Zur ernahrungsphysiologischen Versuchtechnik. Arch. f. Tierernahrung u. Tiersucht (1931), 6, 151.Google Scholar
(50)Winters, L. M. and Peters, W. H. Individual feeding in steer experimentation. Proc. Amer. Soc. of An. Prod. 1931 (Jan. 1932), p. 167.Google Scholar
(51)Wood, T. B.The interpretation of the results of agricultural experiments. Suppl. to J. Board Agric. (1911), No. 7, 15.Google Scholar
(52)Wood, T. B.Animal Nutrition (1927). Univ. Tutorial Press.Google Scholar
(53)Wood, T. B. and Capstick, J. W.The scientific basis of rationing animals. J. Agric. Sci. (1928), 18, 486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(54)Woodman, H. E., Evans, R. E. and Kitchin, A. W. M.Value of oats in the nutrition of swine. J. Agric. Sci. (1932), 22, 657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(55)Wishart, J.The analysis of variance illustrated in its application to a complex agricultural experiment on sugar beet. Archiv für Pflanzenbau (1931), 5, 38.Google Scholar