Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T03:21:58.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of six different levels of feeding for fattening pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. S. Barber
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading, Shinfield
R. Braude
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading, Shinfield
K. G. Mitchell
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading, Shinfield

Extract

1. Sixty Large White pigs in ten blocks of six litter-mates were individually fed on six different planes of feeding. Three groups were fed according to live weight and according to three different scales, and in the other three groups the pigs were given as much food as they would eat in 30 min. at two feeds daily up to a maximum of 7·0, 6·5 and 6·0 lb./day respectively. All pigs received the same meal mixtures.

2. Although the groups being fed according to the various scales took slightly longer to reach bacon weight, they utilized their food more efficiently than the groups fed on the ‘to appetite’ systems. Thus the pigs fed according to the scale shown in Table 1, but up to a daily maximum of 6½ lb. meal/pig, required about 35 lb. less meal to reach bacon weight than those pigs fed ‘to appetite’ up to a maximum of 7 lb. meal/day. The saving in food costs at present-day prices was approximately 10s. per pig.

3. The percentages of grade A carcasses were very high in all groups, but there was a marked tendency for the ‘to appetite’ fed groups to have thicker midback and loin fats, the latter being reflected in the poorer commercial grading results.

4. The importance of interpreting the results in the light of the influence of the strain of pig, environment and type of diet fed on the question of plane of feeding, was emphasised.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

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

Braude, R. & Foot, A. S. (1942). J. Agric. Sci. 32, 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R. & Mitchell, K. G. (19501951). J. Minist. Agric. 57, 501.Google Scholar
MoMeekan, C. P. (1940). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shorrock, R. W. (1940). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar