Loading…

Evaluation of American and British rations for growing pigs

1. A test was carried out simultaneously in Shinfield, Reading, England, and Columbus, Ohio, USA, using typical British and American rations for growing pigs. The rations were compounded in their country of origin; half of each consignment was used at the home station and the other half shipped to t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:British journal of nutrition 1966-01, Vol.20 (2), p.273-282
Main Authors: Barber, R. S., Braude, R., Hosking, Zena D., Mitchell, K. G., Bruner, W. H., Cahill, V. R., Gilliland, J. J., Gundlach, R. F., Teague, H. S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-1d1bbdff0589d66a22701150ab1c529b8385a4d57fa5e670febf6ae71f2ca3083
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-1d1bbdff0589d66a22701150ab1c529b8385a4d57fa5e670febf6ae71f2ca3083
container_end_page 282
container_issue 2
container_start_page 273
container_title British journal of nutrition
container_volume 20
creator Barber, R. S.
Braude, R.
Hosking, Zena D.
Mitchell, K. G.
Bruner, W. H.
Cahill, V. R.
Gilliland, J. J.
Gundlach, R. F.
Teague, H. S.
description 1. A test was carried out simultaneously in Shinfield, Reading, England, and Columbus, Ohio, USA, using typical British and American rations for growing pigs. The rations were compounded in their country of origin; half of each consignment was used at the home station and the other half shipped to the overseas station. 2. Both restricted feeding and ad lib. feeding methods were used at each station. 3. A similar pattern of results was obtained at Shinfield and Columbus. Pigs receiving the American ration, which was higher in energy content, grew faster and required less feed per kg live-weight gain than pigs receiving the British ration. The higher energy content of the ration was probably responsible also for the poorer carcass quality of the pigs receiving the American ration, particularly the high fat content. The comparison between restricted feeding and ad lib. feeding was not affected by the type of ration. Restricted feeding resulted in slower growth rate, slightly better efficiency of feed conversion and considerably better carcass quality.
doi_str_mv 10.1079/BJN19660028
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_84166010</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1079_BJN19660028</cupid><sourcerecordid>84166010</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-1d1bbdff0589d66a22701150ab1c529b8385a4d57fa5e670febf6ae71f2ca3083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkDtPwzAURi0EKqUwMSN5YkEBO4kfEVNTlUJVgUCgjpaT2MGliYud8Pj3BFoVBqarq-_ou7oHgGOMzjFiyUU6vcUJpQiFfAf0ccxIEFIa7oI-QogFGMdkHxx4v-hWjlHSAz2SRJwh2geX4ze5bGVjbA2thsNKOZPLGsq6gKkzjfHP0P3EHmrrYOnsu6lLuDKlPwR7Wi69OtrMAXi6Gj-OroPZ3eRmNJwFeZSwJsAFzrJCa0R4UlAqw5AhjAmSGc5JmGQ84kTGBWFaEkUZ0irTVCqGdZjLCPFoAE7XvStnX1vlG1EZn6vlUtbKtl7wGHffY9SBZ2swd9Z7p7RYOVNJ9ykwEt-qxB9VHX2yqW2zShVbduOmy4N1bnyjPraxdC-CsogRQSf3go6m83kaPYj0l89llTlTlEosbOvqTs2_978ANZ2AGg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>84166010</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of American and British rations for growing pigs</title><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Cambridge University Press:JISC Collections:Full Collection Digital Archives (STM and HSS) (218 titles)</source><creator>Barber, R. S. ; Braude, R. ; Hosking, Zena D. ; Mitchell, K. G. ; Bruner, W. H. ; Cahill, V. R. ; Gilliland, J. J. ; Gundlach, R. F. ; Teague, H. S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Barber, R. S. ; Braude, R. ; Hosking, Zena D. ; Mitchell, K. G. ; Bruner, W. H. ; Cahill, V. R. ; Gilliland, J. J. ; Gundlach, R. F. ; Teague, H. S.</creatorcontrib><description>1. A test was carried out simultaneously in Shinfield, Reading, England, and Columbus, Ohio, USA, using typical British and American rations for growing pigs. The rations were compounded in their country of origin; half of each consignment was used at the home station and the other half shipped to the overseas station. 2. Both restricted feeding and ad lib. feeding methods were used at each station. 3. A similar pattern of results was obtained at Shinfield and Columbus. Pigs receiving the American ration, which was higher in energy content, grew faster and required less feed per kg live-weight gain than pigs receiving the British ration. The higher energy content of the ration was probably responsible also for the poorer carcass quality of the pigs receiving the American ration, particularly the high fat content. The comparison between restricted feeding and ad lib. feeding was not affected by the type of ration. Restricted feeding resulted in slower growth rate, slightly better efficiency of feed conversion and considerably better carcass quality.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-1145</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1475-2662</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1079/BJN19660028</identifier><identifier>PMID: 5938706</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Animals ; England ; Nutritional Physiological Phenomena ; Swine ; United States</subject><ispartof>British journal of nutrition, 1966-01, Vol.20 (2), p.273-282</ispartof><rights>Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1966</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-1d1bbdff0589d66a22701150ab1c529b8385a4d57fa5e670febf6ae71f2ca3083</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-1d1bbdff0589d66a22701150ab1c529b8385a4d57fa5e670febf6ae71f2ca3083</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007114566000291/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,55664</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5938706$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Barber, R. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Braude, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hosking, Zena D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitchell, K. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruner, W. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cahill, V. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gilliland, J. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gundlach, R. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teague, H. S.</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of American and British rations for growing pigs</title><title>British journal of nutrition</title><addtitle>Br J Nutr</addtitle><description>1. A test was carried out simultaneously in Shinfield, Reading, England, and Columbus, Ohio, USA, using typical British and American rations for growing pigs. The rations were compounded in their country of origin; half of each consignment was used at the home station and the other half shipped to the overseas station. 2. Both restricted feeding and ad lib. feeding methods were used at each station. 3. A similar pattern of results was obtained at Shinfield and Columbus. Pigs receiving the American ration, which was higher in energy content, grew faster and required less feed per kg live-weight gain than pigs receiving the British ration. The higher energy content of the ration was probably responsible also for the poorer carcass quality of the pigs receiving the American ration, particularly the high fat content. The comparison between restricted feeding and ad lib. feeding was not affected by the type of ration. Restricted feeding resulted in slower growth rate, slightly better efficiency of feed conversion and considerably better carcass quality.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>England</subject><subject>Nutritional Physiological Phenomena</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0007-1145</issn><issn>1475-2662</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1966</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNptkDtPwzAURi0EKqUwMSN5YkEBO4kfEVNTlUJVgUCgjpaT2MGliYud8Pj3BFoVBqarq-_ou7oHgGOMzjFiyUU6vcUJpQiFfAf0ccxIEFIa7oI-QogFGMdkHxx4v-hWjlHSAz2SRJwh2geX4ze5bGVjbA2thsNKOZPLGsq6gKkzjfHP0P3EHmrrYOnsu6lLuDKlPwR7Wi69OtrMAXi6Gj-OroPZ3eRmNJwFeZSwJsAFzrJCa0R4UlAqw5AhjAmSGc5JmGQ84kTGBWFaEkUZ0irTVCqGdZjLCPFoAE7XvStnX1vlG1EZn6vlUtbKtl7wGHffY9SBZ2swd9Z7p7RYOVNJ9ykwEt-qxB9VHX2yqW2zShVbduOmy4N1bnyjPraxdC-CsogRQSf3go6m83kaPYj0l89llTlTlEosbOvqTs2_978ANZ2AGg</recordid><startdate>19660101</startdate><enddate>19660101</enddate><creator>Barber, R. S.</creator><creator>Braude, R.</creator><creator>Hosking, Zena D.</creator><creator>Mitchell, K. G.</creator><creator>Bruner, W. H.</creator><creator>Cahill, V. R.</creator><creator>Gilliland, J. J.</creator><creator>Gundlach, R. F.</creator><creator>Teague, H. S.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19660101</creationdate><title>Evaluation of American and British rations for growing pigs</title><author>Barber, R. S. ; Braude, R. ; Hosking, Zena D. ; Mitchell, K. G. ; Bruner, W. H. ; Cahill, V. R. ; Gilliland, J. J. ; Gundlach, R. F. ; Teague, H. S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-1d1bbdff0589d66a22701150ab1c529b8385a4d57fa5e670febf6ae71f2ca3083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1966</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>England</topic><topic>Nutritional Physiological Phenomena</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Barber, R. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Braude, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hosking, Zena D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitchell, K. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruner, W. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cahill, V. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gilliland, J. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gundlach, R. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teague, H. S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>British journal of nutrition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Barber, R. S.</au><au>Braude, R.</au><au>Hosking, Zena D.</au><au>Mitchell, K. G.</au><au>Bruner, W. H.</au><au>Cahill, V. R.</au><au>Gilliland, J. J.</au><au>Gundlach, R. F.</au><au>Teague, H. S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of American and British rations for growing pigs</atitle><jtitle>British journal of nutrition</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Nutr</addtitle><date>1966-01-01</date><risdate>1966</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>273</spage><epage>282</epage><pages>273-282</pages><issn>0007-1145</issn><eissn>1475-2662</eissn><abstract>1. A test was carried out simultaneously in Shinfield, Reading, England, and Columbus, Ohio, USA, using typical British and American rations for growing pigs. The rations were compounded in their country of origin; half of each consignment was used at the home station and the other half shipped to the overseas station. 2. Both restricted feeding and ad lib. feeding methods were used at each station. 3. A similar pattern of results was obtained at Shinfield and Columbus. Pigs receiving the American ration, which was higher in energy content, grew faster and required less feed per kg live-weight gain than pigs receiving the British ration. The higher energy content of the ration was probably responsible also for the poorer carcass quality of the pigs receiving the American ration, particularly the high fat content. The comparison between restricted feeding and ad lib. feeding was not affected by the type of ration. Restricted feeding resulted in slower growth rate, slightly better efficiency of feed conversion and considerably better carcass quality.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>5938706</pmid><doi>10.1079/BJN19660028</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0007-1145
ispartof British journal of nutrition, 1966-01, Vol.20 (2), p.273-282
issn 0007-1145
1475-2662
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_84166010
source Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Cambridge University Press:JISC Collections:Full Collection Digital Archives (STM and HSS) (218 titles)
subjects Animals
England
Nutritional Physiological Phenomena
Swine
United States
title Evaluation of American and British rations for growing pigs
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T21%3A54%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20American%20and%20British%20rations%20for%20growing%20pigs&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20nutrition&rft.au=Barber,%20R.%20S.&rft.date=1966-01-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=273&rft.epage=282&rft.pages=273-282&rft.issn=0007-1145&rft.eissn=1475-2662&rft_id=info:doi/10.1079/BJN19660028&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E84166010%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-1d1bbdff0589d66a22701150ab1c529b8385a4d57fa5e670febf6ae71f2ca3083%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=84166010&rft_id=info:pmid/5938706&rft_cupid=10_1079_BJN19660028&rfr_iscdi=true