Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:32:30.361Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of simplifying feeding methods for growing pigs by using a single ration throughout and by providing cereal and supplement components unmixed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

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

Summary

A co-ordinated trial has been carried out at sixteen centres to compare the following three feeding methods for growing pigs: (1) ‘sow and weaner’ type meal up to 120 lb live weight, followed by ‘finishing’ type meal to slaughter; (2) ‘sow and weaner’ type meal from start to slaughter; (3) as (2), but the cereal and supplement components given separately (not mixed).

Using the sow-and-weaner type meal throughout, rather than changing to a lower protein diet at 120 lb live weight, resulted in slight improvements (less than 2½%) in over-all growth rate and feed conversion; these improvements were not sufficient to compensate for the higher feed costs. None of the carcass measurements was significantly affected.

Lack of mixing of the cereal and supplement components did not harm the performance of the pigs and so farmers who produce their own cereals and buy concentrates may reduce costs by the elimination of mixing.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , October 1968 , pp. 271 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

Bellis, D. B. (1965). Protein level for bacon pigs. Anim. Prod. 7, 286 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Braude, R. & Rowell, J. G. (1957). Labour saving in feeding of fattening pigs. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 48, 322–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R. & Rowell, J. G. (1966). Comparison of meal and pellets for growing pigs fed either in troughs or off the floor. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 67, 53–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Townsend, M. J., Harrington, G. & Rowell, J. G. (1958). A large-scale test of the effects of food restriction on the performance of fattening pigs. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 51, 208–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Townsend, M. J., Harrington, G. & Rowell, J. G. (1960). Effects of different protein contents in the rations of growing-fattening pigs. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 55, 175–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Townsend, M. J., Harrington, G. & Rowell, J. G. (1961). A comparison of wheat and fine wheat offal in the rations of fattening pigs. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 57, 257–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, S. F., Harrington, G. & Johnson, R. F. (1962). The prediction of lean percentage of pigs of bacon weight from carcass measurements. Anim. Prod. 4, 25–36.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Evans, R. E. (1940). The nutrition of the bacon pig. V. The minimum level of protein consistent with quick growth and satisfactory carcass quality (part II). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 30, 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Evans, R. E. (1941). The nutrition of the bacon pig. VI. The minimum level of protein intake consistent with quick growth and satisfactory carcass quality (part III). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 31, 232–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Evans, R. E. (1945). Nutrition of the bacon pig. XI. The minimum level of protein intake consistent with quick growth and satisfactory carcass quality (part IV). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 35, 133–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Evans, R. E. (1948). Nutrition of the bacon pig. XIII. The minimum level of protein intake consistent with the maximum rate of growth (part V). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 38, 354–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar