Group Title: Department of Animal Science mimeograph series
Title: A Study of the relationship of feed restriction and dietary protein level in finishing hogs
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072962/00001
 Material Information
Title: A Study of the relationship of feed restriction and dietary protein level in finishing hogs
Series Title: Department of Animal Science mimeograph series
Physical Description: 7 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Wallace, H. D ( Harold Dean )
Palmer, A. Z.
Carpenter, J. W.
Combs, G. E.
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: February, 1965
Copyright Date: 1965
 Subjects
Subject: Swine -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Proteins in animal nutrition   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: H.D. Wallace ... et al..
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 4).
General Note: Caption title.
General Note: "February, 1965."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00072962
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 77550098

Full Text



Department of Animal Science Florida Agricultural
Mimeograph'Series No. AN65-9 Experiment Station-
February, 1965 Gainesville, Florida


A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF FEED RESTRICTION
AND DIETARY PROTEIN LEVEL IN FINISHING HOGS

H. D. Wallace, A. Z. Palmer, J. W. Carpenter and G. E. Combs -


In three previous studies (1,2,3) it was observed that limiting feed intake
to 5 lb. per head per day commencing at 100 lb. liveweight reduced both rate of
gain and efficiency of feed conversion. However, all factors related to carcass
leanness were favorably influenced. Backfat thickness was reduced, loin eye area
and percent four lean cuts were increased. Carcass firmness tended to decrease
with restricted feeding.

The present study was undertaken to obtain additional information on the above
factors and to investigate also the relationship of dietary protein level and feed
restriction.

Experimental Procedure

This study consisted of two experiments, each of which involved a total of 40
crossbred (Duroc-Landrace x Hampshire) pigs. The general allotment and treat-
ment design for the two experiments is shown in Table 1. Pigs were allotted from
outcome groups formed on the basis of weight, sex and litter. The restricted pigs
were fed a constant level of 5 Ib. of feed per head per day divided equally between
a morning and evening feeding. The full-fed pigs were fed by self-feeder. The com-
position of the feed mixtures is presented in Table 2.

The pigs were individually weighed off test for slaughter at 200 + 5 pounds.
The pigs were weighed on and off test in a "full" state of fill. In order to min-
imize the variation in fill between full-fed and restricted pigs, all animals were
weighed off at approximately 9 A.M. or about I hour after the restricted pigs had
consumed their morning feed.

The pigs were slaughtered and dressed packer style for carcass study. Car-
cass weights and measurements were taken after the carcasses had been chilled for
48 hours at 34 36 degrees F. Length of carcass was obtained by a measurement
from the anterior edge of the aitch bone (pelvis) to the anterior edge of the first
rib. Backfat thickness was calculated as an average of measurements taken at the
first rib, last rib and last lumbar vertebra. A tracing was made of the perimeter
of the lonaissimus dorsi muscle (loin eye), exposed by cutting the loin perpendic-
ular to the vertebral column equidistant between the tenth and eleventh ribs. The




I1 Wallace, Animal Nutritionist; Palmer, Meat Scientist; Carpenter, Assistant
Meat Scientist, and Combs, Associate Animal Nutritionist, Animal Science De-
partment. The assistance of B. R. Cannon and L. S. Taylor, Swine Herdsmen;
Jeff Jeter, Meats Laboratory Manager and Mrs. Sherry Bellino, Assistant in
Meats is gratefully acknowledged.





-2-


Table I. Allottment and treatment design


Treatment Group I 2 3 4


EXPERIMENT I (CONCRETE)
Number of animals 10 10 10 10
Barrows 5 5 5 5
Gilts 5 5 5 5
Method of feeding Individual Individual Individual Individual
Level of feeding Restricted Restricted Full Full
Dietary protein level (%) 17 II 17 11

EXPERIMENT 2 (DIRT LOTS)
Number of animals 10 10 10 10
Barrows 4 4 4 4
Gilts 6 6 6 6
Method of feeding Group Group Group Group
Level of feeding Restricted Restricted Full Full
Dietary protein level (%) 17 II 17 II



Table 2. Composition of feed mixtures


17% 11%
protein protein

Ground yellow corn 77.30 91.55
Soybean oilmeal (50%) 20.00 5.50
Ground limestone 1.50 1.80
Steamed bonemeal 0.50 0.50
Iodized salt / 0.50 0.50
Trace minerals -1 0.05 0.05
B-vitamin supplement 2/ 0.10 0.10
Vitamin B12 supplement i/ 0.05 0.05


I/ MnSO4 22.5%, FeSO4 35.0%, CuSO4 1.89%, CoSO4 0.498%, ZnSO4 10.0%,
K2SO4. 1.67%, and CaCO3 28.442%.

/ Contained 8,000, 14,720, 36,000 and 40,000 goe per Ib. respectively of
riboflavin, pantothenic acid, niacin and choline chloride.

3/ Contained a minimum of 20 mg. vitamin B12 per pound.








- 3 -


area of the loin eye muscle was then determined by use of a compensating polar
planimeter. The carcasses were broken down by a standard procedure (Reciprocal
Meat Conference, 1951).

Experiment I was initiated February 15, 1964, and terminated May 18, 1964.
Experiment 2 was initiated February 20, 1964, and terminated June I, 1964.


Results and Discussion

Results from experiments I and 2 are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 respectively.
A combined statistical study of the combined data from the two experiments is
given in Table 5.

The feeding treatments for experiments I and 2 were identical. However, in
experiment I the feeding was in concrete confinement and the pigs were individ-
ually fed. In experiment 2 the pigs were group-fed in small pasture lots. The
feedlot performance of the pigs in experiment I was much superior to that of the
pigs in experiment 2. This marked difference in gains (2.07, 1.85, 1.35 and 1.22)
vs. (1.69, 1.47, 1.32 and 1.06) for the respective lots is of interest. Similar-
ly, the feed required per pound gain was greatly different (3.44, 3.78, 3.70 and
4.09) vs. (3.67, 3.77, 4.59 and 4.90). Since pigs in both experiments were of
similar breeding and quality it appears that either method of feeding or environ-
mental factors or both influenced results. In a previous experiment (3) it was
observed that rate of gain was not affected by method of feeding (individual vs.
group), but that feeding efficiency was much better for individually fed pigs.
It is probable that cold, wet weather conditions which existed during the experi-
mental period also contributed to differences in performance, since the pigs in
experiment 2 were sheltered by trees only. Earlier experiments have also suggest-
ed that close confinement is essential for optimum performance under restricted
feeding.

In contrast to feedlot performance, carcass measurements generally favored
pigs from experiment 2. This was more marked in case of the full-fed pigs and
probably reflected In part the slower rate of gain made by the full-fed pigs in
the pasture lots.

The main treatment variables, combined and summarized in Table 5, reveal
marked differences in performance and carcasses between the full-fed and restricted
pigs. Full-fed pigs gained significantly faster and more efficiently (P<.01).
Restricted pigs developed less backfat and larger loin eye areas and yielded a
greater percent of four lean cuts (P<.01). Pigs fed a 17 percent protein diet
gained faster and more efficiently (P<.01) than pigs fed a diet containing 11
percent protein. Pigs fed the higher level of protein yielded leaner carcasses
as measured by loin eye area, percent four lean cuts and marbling score (P<.01).
It is very evident from these two experiments that percent protein in the diet is
a critical aspect of restricted feeding. Commonly recommended levels for finish-
ing hogs on full feed may be inadequate under limited feeding, especially for good
meat-type hogs.




-4-


Summary

Two experiments, involving a total of 80 growing-finishing pigs, have been
conducted to determine the importance of dietary protein level relative to re-
stricted feeding.

As in previous experiments, restricted feeding slowed gains, reduced the ef-
ficiency of feed conversion and generally improved carcasses in terms of a greater
yield of lean meat.

A 17 percent protein diet was markedly superior to an II percent diet for
both full-fed and restricted pigs. The higher level of protein induced more rapid
and efficient gains and much leaner, more desirable carcasses.

These results stress the importance of adequate protein under both full feed-
ing and restricted feeding programs. Inadequate protein downgrades both feedlot
'performance and carcass value. With restricted feeding, it is especially import-
ant to provide enough protein in order to obtain maximum daily gain, feed efficien-
cy, minimum backfat thickness and the highest possible yield of 4 lean cuts.



Literature Cited

I. Wallace, H. D., A. Z. Palmer, J. W. Carpenter, N. H. Anh and G. E. Combs.
1963. The influence of feed restriction, high level copper supplementation
and sex on the feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of swine.
Fla. An. Sci. Mimeo. Series No. 63-16.

2. Wallace, H. D., A. Z. Palmer, J. W. Carpenter and G. E. Combs. 1963. The
Influence of feeding a constant level of feed from 10)0 rpunds liveweight to
market weight on feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of swine.
Fla. An. Sci. Mimao. Report AN64-5.

3. Wallace, H. D., N. H. Anh, A. Z. Palmer, J. W. Carpenter and G. E. Combs.
1964. Effects of limiting feed intake on performance and carcass character-
istics of finishing pigs. Fla. An. Sci. Mimeo. Report AN65-5.











HDW:gem
2/5/65
1000 copies












Table 3. The relationship of feed restriction and dietary
protein level (Experiment I).


Lot 1 2 3 4
Feed Level Restricted Restricted Full Full
Percent protein 17 II 17 11


Number of pigs 10 10 10 10
Initial wt., lb. 111.6 .111.4 111.8 112.4
Slaughter wt., lb. 196.7 198.2 200.0 201.5
Daily gain, lb. 1.35 1.22 2.07 1.85
Feed per Ib. gain, lb. 3.70 4.09 3.44 3.78
Dressing percent 1/ 71.43 70.75 71.26 71.50
Carcass length, in. 30.00 30.33 29.41 30.45
Backfat thickness, in. 1.20 1.24 1.37 1.41
Loin eye area, sq. in. 4.30 3.86 3.95 3.50
Wt. of hams, lb. 28.83 27.94 27.17 26.93
Wt. of loins, Ib. 21.61 20.67 20.70 20.43
Wt. of picnics, lb. 13.44 13.72 13.31 12.80
Wt. of butts, Ib. 9.47 9.08 9.26 8.98
Percent 4 lean cuts I/ 52.19 50.92 49.52 48.01
Marbling score 2/ 5.85 10.20 8.40 14.95


1/ Based on chilled carcass weight
2/ Marbling of the L. dorsi between 10th and Ilth ribs.
5 = traces, 8 = slight, II small, 14 = modest, etc.


Scores coded from 0 33; 2 = practically devoid,


I I
!









Table 4. The relationship of feed restriction and dietary protein
level (Experiment 2).


Lot 1 2 3 4
Feed Level Restricted Restricted Full Full
Percent protein 17 11I 17 II


Number of pigs 10 10 10 10
Initial wt., lb. 109.1 109.4 109.2 109.3
Slaughter wt., lb. 202.6 201.3 203.4 199.9
Daily gain, lb. 1.32 1.06 1.69 1.47
Feed per lb. gain, lb. 4.59 4.90 3.67 3.77
Dressing percent I/ .67.62 67.50 70.79 69.58
Carcass length, in. 30.05 30.35 30.20 29.94
Backfat thickness, in. 1.13 1.18 1.30 1.27
Loin eye area, sq. in. 4.23 3.60 4.13 3.66
Wt. of hams, lb. 28.22 27.09 28.84 26.60
Wt. of loins, lb. 21.68 20.43 22.26 20.48
Wt. of picnics, lb. 13.10 12.77 13.05 12.87
Wt. of butts, lb. 9.67 9.40 9.98 9.44
Percent 4 lean cuts 1/ 53.05 51.11 51.67 49.90
Marbling score 2/ 6.75 14.35 6.70 10.61


!/ Based on chilled carcass weight
a/ Marbling of the L. dorsi between 10th and
void, 5 = traces, 8 = slight, I. = small,


IIth ribs. Scores
14 = modest, etc.


coded from 0 33; 2 = practically de-









Table 5. Feedlot performance and carcass data as influenced
by main treatment variables (Experiments I and 2
combined).


Level of Feeding Protein Level $ Statistica.l Significance
Comparison Restricted Full 17 II Level of Protein
Feeding Level


Number of pigs 40 40 40 40
Initial wt., lb. 110.4 110.7 110.4 110.6
Slaughter wt., lb. 199.7 201.2 200.7 200.2
Daily gain, Ib. 1.24 1.77 1.61 1.40 ** m*
Feed per lb. gain, lb. 4.32 3.67 3.85 4.14 ** **
Dressing percent 1/ 69.33 70.78 70.28 69.83 NS NS
Carcass length 30.18 30.00 29.92 30.27 NS NS
Backfat thickness, in. 1.19 1.34 1.25 1.28 ** NS
Loin eye area, sq. in. 4.00 3.81 4.15 3.66 ** **
Wt. of hams, lb. 28.02 27.39 28.27 27.14
Wt. of loins, Ib. 21.10 20.97 21.56 20.50
Wt. of picnics, lb. 13.26 13.01 13.23 13.04
Wt. of butts, lb. 9.41 9.42 9.60 9.23 -
Percent 4 lean cuts 1/ 51.82 49.76 51.61 49.99 ** **
Marbling score 2/ 9.29 10.17 6.93 12.53 NS **


* Significantly different (P<.01); NS = Non-Significant.

J/ Based on chilled carcass weight.

2/ Marbling of the L. dorsi between 10th and 11th ribs. Scores coded from 0 33; 2 = practically
devoid, 5 = traces, 8 = slight, II = small, 14 = modest, etc.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs