Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T17:42:27.365Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of frequency of feeding on the utilization of free lysine by growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2011

E. S. Batterham
E. S. Batterham
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Forestry, 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. Pigs from 20 to 47 kg live weight were given a wheat–safflower diet supplemented with either 0, 2 or 4 g L-lysine/kg either once daily or in six equal portions at intervals of 3 h.

2. The addition of lysine at both levels significantly (P < 0.001) increased growth rate, feed conversion and lean content of the ham.

3. Frequency of feeding had no effect on the response of pigs given the control diet.

4. A significant interaction (P < 0.05) between frequency of feeding and lysine supplementation occurred for growth rate. Growth responses to the supplements of 2 and 4 g L-lysine/ kg with once-daily feeding were only 43 and 69% of those achieved under the frequent-feeding regimen.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , March 1974 , pp. 237 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1974

References

REFERENCES

Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1965). Official Methods of Analysis. 10th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Braude, R., Mitchell, K. G., Myres, A. W., Newport, M. J. & Cuthbertson, A. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buraczewski, S., Porter, J. W. G., Rolls, B. A. & Zebrowska, T. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dent, J. B., English, P. R. & Raeburn, J. R. (1970). Anim. Prod. 12, 379.Google Scholar
Drennan, P. & Maguire, M. F. (1970). Ir. J. Agric. Res. 9, 197.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, A. & Guggenheim, K. (1962). Biochem. J. 83, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, J. D., Dakroury, A. M. & Harper, A. E. (1958). J. Nutr. 64, 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamalian, J. & Pellett, P. L. (1968). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 19, 378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, E. L. (1967). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 18, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Porter, J. W. G. & Rolls, B. A. (1971). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 30, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roach, A. G., Sanderson, P. & Williams, D. R. (1967). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 18, 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, Q. R., Chen, M.-L., Peraino, C. & Harper, A. E. (1960). J. Nutr. 72, 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolls, B. A., Porter, J. W. G. & Westgarth, D. R. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 28, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods 6th ed., p. 346. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Spackman, D. H., Stein, W. A. & Moore, S. (1958). Analyt. Chem. 30, 1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar