Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T11:51:25.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of environmental temperature on suckling pigs and a study of the milk yield of the sow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. C. Gill  and
W. Thomson
J. C. Gill
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeenshire
W. Thomson
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeenshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A study was made of the performance of eight litters of pigs housed under two widely different levels of ambient temperature during the suckling period and under uniform conditions from weaning to 200 lb. live weight.

2. There was no significant treatment difference in the amount of milk suckled, but the pigs exposed to the lower temperature consumed more solid food before weaning.

3. Up to weaning those kept at the higher temperature were the more efficient converters of milk and solid food into live weight.

4. There was a highly significant correlation between milk suckled and live-weight gain.

5. Probably through excessive handling, the pigs were under weight at weaning, but the postweaning performance appeared to be unaffected by the pre-weaning treatment.

6. The average milk yield of six sows from the 3rd to the 56th day of lactation was 275 kg. 605 lb.) (variations 202–347 kg. (445–764 lb.)). Yields have been compared with others published.

7. After allowing for maintenance requirements and weight gain or loss it is estimated that the sows required 412 Calories of net energy to produce 1 lb. of milk.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , May 1956 , pp. 324 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

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

Albig, A. (1940). Tiernahrung, 12, 131.Google Scholar
Barber, R. S., Braude, R. & Mitchell, K. G. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 97–118.Google Scholar
Bonsma, F. N. & Oosthuizen, P. M. (1935). S. Afr. J. Sci. 32, 360.Google Scholar
Cowie, A. T., Folley, S. J., Cross, B. A., Harris, G. W., Jacobsohn, D. & Richardson, K. C. (1951). Nature, Lond., 168, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. P. (1937). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 5, 349.Google Scholar
Gill, J. C. & Thomson, W. (1956). Brit. J. Anim. Behav. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Hempel, K. (1928). Arb. dtsch. Ges. Zuchtungsk. no. 37.Google Scholar
Howie, J. W., Biggar, W. A., Thomson, W. & Cook, R. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 110.Google Scholar
Hughes, E. H. & Hart, H. G. (1935). J. Nutr. 9, 311.Google Scholar
Keys, A. (1949). Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 19, 1.Google Scholar
Lachmann, A. (1942). Tiernahrung, 14, 278.Google Scholar
Lucas, I. A. M. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 369.Google Scholar
McLagan, J. & Thomson, W. (1950). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, H. H. & Kelley, M. A. R. (1938). J. Agric. Res. 56, 811.Google Scholar
Naftalin, J. M. & Howie, J. W. (1949). J. Path. Bact. 61, 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niwa, T., Ito, S., Yokoyama, H. & Otsuka, M. (1951). Bull. Nat. Inst. Agric. Sci., Yahagi, Japan, Ser. G, no. 1, p. 135.Google Scholar
Olofsson, N. E. & Larsson, S. (1930). Medd. CentAnst. Försöksv. Jordbr., Stockh., no. 371.Google Scholar
Schneider, C. T. (1934). Landw. Jb. 80, 353.Google Scholar
Smith, D. M. (1952). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 34, 65.Google Scholar