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...
Saved in:
Published in: | British journal of nutrition 1966-01, Vol.20 (2), p.273-282 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
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 |