Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T09:52:45.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of antibiotic dietary supplements on the carcass measurements and dressing percentage of bacon pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. Harrington  and
J. H. Taylor
G. Harrington
Affiliation:
A.R.C. and School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge, and A.R.C Field Station, Gompton, Berkshire
J. H. Taylor
Affiliation:
A.R.C. and School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge, and A.R.C Field Station, Gompton, Berkshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Certain carcass measurements (length, shoulder and mid-back fats, belly thickness and dressing percentage) made on a total of 402 bacon pigs from four antibiotic feeding trials have been analysed.

2. The length of the carcasses showed more variation between pens treated with various doses of penicillin than between control pens or pens treated with aureomycin. This greater variation in length was related to the greater variation in growth rate between the penicillin treatments. No differences in the mean lengths of control, penicillin and aureomycin treatments were found.

3. Back fat measurements and belly thickness showed no differences between aureomycin, penicillin and control treatments in overall tests.

4. Aureomycin consistently gave higher dressing percentages than penicillin. Animal protein also gave higher dressing percentages than vegetable protein, but no effect of vitamin B12 on this quantity was found.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , August 1955 , pp. 173 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

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

Agricultural Research Council (1953). Rep. Agric. Res. Coun. no. 13.Google Scholar
Barber, R. S., Braude, R., Kon, S. K. & Mitchell, K. G. (1953). Brit. J. Nutr. 7, 306.Google Scholar
Becker, D. E., Adams, C. R., Terrill, S. W. & Meade, R. J. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowland, J. P., Beacom, S. E. & McElroy, L. W. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 629.Google Scholar
Braude, R., Kon, S. K. & Porter, J. W. G. (1953). Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 23, 473.Google Scholar
Braude, R., Wallace, H. D. & Cunha, T. J. (1953). Antibiotics and Chemotherapy, 3, 271.Google Scholar
Catron, D. V., Jensen, A. H., Homeyer, P. G., Maddock, H. M. & Ashton, G. C. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 221.Google Scholar
Catron, D. V., Jensen, A. H. & Maddock, H. M. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 1043.Google Scholar
Gordon, W. S. & Taylor, J. H. (1953). Vet. Rec. 65, 838.Google Scholar
Harrington, G. (1954). Unpublished data.Google Scholar
Harrington, G. & Pomeroy, R. W. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Jensen, A. H., Ashton, G. C., Maddock, H. M., Homeyer, P. G. & Catron, D. V. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 767.Google Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1940). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 276.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. H. & Harrington, G. (1954). Unpublished data.Google Scholar
Vohs, R. L., Maddock, H. M., Catron, D. V. & Culbertson, C. C. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 42.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. D., Burnside, J. E., Bray, R. W., Phillips, P. H. & Grummer, R. H. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar