Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T13:14:00.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of litter-mate pigs slaughtered at 200 and 260 lb. live weight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. Braude ,
M. Jill Townsend  and
G. Harrington
R. Braude
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
M. Jill Townsend
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
G. Harrington
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Statistics Group, School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A co-ordinated trial has been carried out at eight centres to compare the performance of group-fed pigs slaughtered at about 200 lb. live weight (bacon weight) with that of litter-mates slaughtered at 260 lb. (heavy pigs).

2. The bacon pigs were fed either ad lib. or restricted according to live weight, while the heavy pigs were all fed ad lib. with one group having the protein supplement withdrawn from the ration after the pigs had reached 140 lb. live weight.

3. Growth rate, efficiency of food conversion and carcass quality (based on dissection) data are summarized in Table 5.

4. In general, the results indicated that under the conditions that prevailed, and when the leanness of the carcass is the major consideration, the slaughter weight around 200 lb. was preferable to the heavier weight (about 260 lb.) both from the production and economic aspect.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , October 1963 , pp. 209 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

Atkinson, J. & Klein, J. W. (1945). Tech. Bull. U.S.D.A. no. 894. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Bellis, D. B., Friedlander, J. A. P. & Trenchard, Lord (1960). The economic production of pig meat. T. Wall & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Bellis, D. B. & Taylor, J. (1961). Anim. Prod. 3, 209.Google Scholar
Braude, R. & Harrington, G. (1962). Agriculture, Lond., 68, 532.Google Scholar
Braude, R., Townsend, M. J., Harrington, G. & Rowell, J. G. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 51, 208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Townsend, M. J., Harrington, G. & Rowell, J. G. (1960). J. Agric. Sci. 55, 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Townsend, M. J., Harrington, G. & Rowell, J. G. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 57, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Townsend, M. J., Harrington, G. & Rowell, J. G. (1962). J. Agric. Sci. 58, 251.Google Scholar
Buck, S. F. (1962). Paper read at meeting of British Society of Animal Production, 03 1962.Google Scholar
Buck, S. F., Harrington, G. & Johnson, R. F. (1962). Anim. Prod. 4, 25.Google Scholar
Clausen, H. (1955). Rep. Göttingen Conference.Google Scholar
Coey, W. E. (1958). Pig Progress, 2, (7), 10.Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A. (1962). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Federer, W. T. (1955). Experimental Design. New York: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
Food Research Department, Sharnbrook (1956, 1957). Quoted by Price et al. (1960).Google Scholar
Friedlander, J. A. P. (1961). J. Inst. Corn Agric. Merch. 10, (1), 21.Google Scholar
Herschdorfer, S. M. (1961). Paper to 6th Meeting of Meat Research Institutes, Utrecht, 08 1960.Google Scholar
Hill, F. & O'Carkoll, F. M. (1962). Irish J. Agric. Res. 1, 155.Google Scholar
Jespersen, J. & Clausen, H. (1950). Pig Breeding and Pig Keeping. Copenhagen: Kandrup & Wunsch.Google Scholar
Lawrie, R. A. (1962). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Morrison, F. B. (1956). Feeds and Feeding, 22nd edition. New York: Morrison Publishing Co.Google Scholar
McCampbell, H. C. & Baird, D. M. (1961). J. Anim. Sci. 20, 919 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Price, W. T., Bellis, D. & Friedlander, J. A. P. (1960). Comparison of Bacon and Heavy Pigs. Newport, Salop: Larger Adams Agricultural College.Google Scholar
Ridgeon, R. F. (1960). University of Cambridge, School of Agriculture, Farm Economics Branch, Report no. 52.Google Scholar
Ridgeon, R. F. (1962). Pig Farming, 10, (3) 70.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J. V., Schleinitz, M., Lagneau, E. & Zimmermann, C. (1933). Arb. dtsch. Ges. Zücht. no. 59.Google Scholar
Stahl, W. & Lemcke, B. (1954). Arch. Tierernähr. Beiheft no. 4, 240.Google Scholar
Trenchaed, Lord (1960). J. Fmrs' Cl. Part 6.Google Scholar
T. Wall & Sons Ltd. (1958). The Economics of Heavy Pig Production. Mimeographed report.Google Scholar
T. Wall & Sons Ltd. (1960). The Economics of Heavy Pig Production. Mimeographed report.Google Scholar
Wallace, H. D., McCabe, G. E., Palmer, A. Z., Koger, M., Carpenter, J. W. & Combs, G. E. (1960). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 1484 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Weniger, J. H. (1955). Arch. Tierernähr. 4, 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wode, E. (1960). Schweinezucht u. Schweinemast, 8, 21.Google Scholar
Zobrisky, S. E., Naumann, H. D., Lasley, J. F., Brady, D. E. & Mullins, A. M. (1958). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 672.Google Scholar