| Material Information
||Low level continuous feeding of piperazine phosphate and hygromycin feed supplement to growing-finishing pigs
||4 leaves : ; 28 cm.
||Wallace, H. D. ( Harold Dean )
Davis, W. F.
Combs, G. E.
Swanson, L. E.
||Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
||Place of Publication:
||Swine -- Parasites -- Control -- Florida ( lcsh )
Swine -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida ( lcsh )
Feeds -- Composition -- Florida ( lcsh )
||government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
||Statement of Responsibility:
||H.D. Wallace ... et al..
||Animal husbandry and nutrition mimeograph series - University of Florida Department of Animal Husbandry and Nutrtion ; 58-6
| Record Information
||University of Florida
||All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
||oclc - 76953153
Animal Husbandry and Nutrition Florida Agricultural
Mimeograph Series No. 58-6 Experiment Station
LOW LEVEL CONTINUOUS FEEDING OF PIPERAZINE PHOSPHATE AND
HYGROMYCIN FEED SUPPLEMENT TO GROWING-FINISHING PIGSI
H. D. Wallace, W. F. Davis, G. E. Combs, Jr. and L. E. Swanson2
Internal parasites have long been a serious problem for the swine producer.
Standard worming compounds such as sodium fluoride and phenothiazine are effective
when administered properly but are troublesome to use. Sodium fluoride is extremely
toxic to the animal and great care must be exercised when using this material.
Recently certain piperazine compounds have been found an effective anthelmintic.
They are non-toxic to the animal and can be administered in therapeutic doses in
either the feed or water with good worming results. Because piperazine compounds
appear to be non-toxic it occurred to the authors that they might find usefulness
in a low level continuous feeding program which would simplify the worming pro-
cedure for many farmers. The two experiments reported here were undertaken mainly
to test this possibility. In the second experiment a new worming product, "Hygromix,"
was also tested.
Weanling pigs of mixed breeding were used in both experiments. They were
intentionally selected as "poor doing" pigs and several of them appeared to be
parasitized. No worming treatment was given the animals prior to the start of the
experiments. They were allotted to the experimental groups on the basis of initial
weight, breed, and previous treatment and maintained in old hog lots during the
experimental feeding periods. Feed and water was provided by self-feeders and
The basal ration employed in both experiments consisted of the following
Up to 125 Ibs. After 125 Ibs.
body welaht body weight
Ground yellow corn 77.0 84.3
Soybean oil meal 20.3 13.0
Ground limestone 1.0 1.0
Steamed bone meal 1.0 1.0
Iodized salt 0.5 0.5
Trace minerals 0.1 0.1
Vitamin Supplement (2-49( Lederle) 0.1 0.1
Antibiotic Supplement (TM-10 Pfizer) 0.05 0.05
IThe piperazine phosphate was supplied by Chemo Puro Manufacturing Corpor *nr
Newark, N. J., through the courtesy of Mr. J. V. Demarest. The Hygro. es
Supplement used in Expt. 2 was supplied by Eli Lilly and Co., India is,
2Wallace, Davis and Combs, Associate Animal Husbandman, Graduate As I ant and
Assistant Animal Husbandman, respectively, Department of Animal Hus a dry and /9
Nutrition; Swanson, Parasitologist, Department of Veterinary Scienc. jThe
assistance of W. E. Collins and L. S. Taylor, Swine Herdsmen, is gral l
The dietary treatments for the two experiments are outlined below:
Experiment I Experiment II
Lot I Basal Basal
Lot 2 Basal + 20 gm. piperazine Basal f 20 gm. piperazine
phosphate per 100 Ibs. feed phosphate per 100 Ibs. feed
Lot 3 ---- Basal + 114 gm. hygromycin
feed supplement (Hygromix)
per 100 Ibs. feed
At the termination of Experiment II six representative animals in each of the
lots were slaughtered and large roundworms present in the intestine were counted.
Livers from the animals were examined for possible worm damage.
Results and Discussion
Performance of pigs in both experiments is summarized in Table 1. Results of
the roundworm counts and observations on liver damage for Experiment II are presented
In Table 2.
In Experiment I the animals fed the piperazine phosphate ate considerably more
feed and gained significantly faster than the control group. The difference in
appetite which resulted in greater feed consumption was very striking. Both groups
converted feed to gain very efficiently and at approximately the same rate. It must
be pointed out, however, that since the treated pigs of Lot 2 were about 12 pounds
heavier per animal at the termination of the test that they were actually penalized
as regards this comparison of overall feeding efficiency. In Experiment II the
piperazine phosphate (Lot 2) again exerted a marked favorable influence on feed
intake which resulted in improved gains. The "Hygromix" pigs (Lot 3) gained at the
same rate as the control pigs, but were slightly more efficient In feed conversion.
The worm counts and observations on liver damage (Table 2) were, of course,
quite limited but do seem to indicate several things. First, the worm infestation
3f the pigs tested was very light, thus indicating that any anthelmintic effect pro-
,ably would not of itself improve gains or feed conversion significantly. Secondly,
there appeared to be no relationship between the number of ascarids present in the
intestine and the amount of liver damage. Thirdly, it appears probable that the
'Hygromix" was effectively eliminating ascarids.
I. Eighty weanling pigs were used in two experiments to test the value of low
level continuous feeding of piperazine phosphate and "Hygromix."
2. In both experiments low level piperazine phosphate caused Improvement in
growth rate which appeared to be the direct result of greater feed consumption.
:rom results of worm counts made in Experiment II it would seem that the piperazine
ias not exerting its beneficial effect on gains and feed intake as a result of
TABLE I. PERFORMANCE OF PIGS FED LOW LEVEL OF PIPERAZINE PHOSPHATE
AND "HYGROMIX" FROM WEANING TO MARKET WEIGHT
Treatment Experiment No. I Experiment No. II
Basal Basal 1 Piperazine Basal Basal + Piperazine Basal + "Hygromix"
Lot No. I 2 I 2 3
No. pigs per lot 20 20 II 14 15
Av. initial wt., Ibs. 25.9 25.6 41.4 40.6 41.5
Av. final wt., Ibs. 185.7 197.5 175.6 182.1 175.2
Av. daily gain, Ibs. 1.57 1.69* 1.46 1.54 1.45
Av. daily feed
consumed/pig, Ibs. 4.71 5.20 4.96 5.26 4.78
Feed required per
lb. gain, Ibs. 3.00 3.08 3.40 3.42 3.29
No. days on test 102 102 92 92 92
*Gains significantly faster than Lot I (P <.05).
TABLE 2. INFLUENCE OF LOW LEVEL PIPERAZINE FEEDING AND
"HYGROMIX" FEEDING ON WORM COUNTS AND LIVER DAMAGE (EXPT. II)
Treatment and Pig No. No. Ascarids in Intestine Liver Damage
Low level piperazine 32-A
Low level piperazine 48-A
Low level piperazine 53-A
Low level piperazine 434
Low level piperazine 462
Low level piperazine 73
Moderate to severe