Animal Husbandry and Nutrition / Florida Agricultural
Mimeograph Series No. 59-5 Experiment Station
S9, 'February, 1959
COMPARISON OF PROTEIN SUPPLEMENT GTROWING-FINISHING SWINE /
G. E. Combs, H. D. Wallace, R. B. Christmas and G. E. McCabeI
In the selection of a protein supplement for growing-finishing swine two of
the most important considerations are protein quality and cost. A valuable aid
to this selection is information concerning the comparative performance of pigs
fed various sources of protein since a comparable rate and efficiency of gain
indicates that the feeds are of similar quality. In such instances cost then
becomes the important consideration.
Previous studies have demonstrated the relative feeding value of sunflower
seed meal (4), cottonseed meal (3), poultry meat meal (I), and feather meal (2).
as protein supplements. The present study was concerned with the comparative
performance of pigs fed rations containing either soybean oil meal, tankage, a
combination of soybean oil meal and tankage or a commercial protein supplement.
Experiment I Soybean oil meal vs. tankage vs. soybean oil meal-tankage mixture.
Twenty-four pigs of mixed breeding were allotted on the basis of'initial ,';.
weight and breed to three ration treatments. The pigs had an average initial.
weight of approximately 83.5 pounds and were fed the experimental rations for
a 70 day period.
Experiment 2 Soybean oil meal vs. tankage vs. soybean oil meal-tankage mixture.
Thirty Duroc weanling pigs having an average initial weight of approximately
33.5 pounds were divided into three lots of 10 pigs each. The experiment was
terminated after a period of 56 days.
Experiment 3 Soybean oil meal vs. commercial supplement.
Twenty pigs were divided on a weight basis into two lots. The pigs had an
average initial weight of 97 pounds and were on experiment for 63 days.
The pigs in all experiments were kept in concrete-floored pens and were fed
complete-mixed rations. Feed and water was provided by self-feeders and automatic
ICombs, Assistant Animal Husbandman, Wallace, Associate Animal Husbandman;
Christmas and McCabe, Graduate Assistants, Department of Animal Husbandry and
Nutrition, University of Florida, Gainesville. The assistance of W. E. Collins
and L. S. Taylor, Swine Herdsmen, is gratefully acknowledged.
waterers. The ration treatments for the three experiments were as follows:
SBOM + Tankage
SBOM + Tankage
The composition of the rations used is shown in Table 1.
Table I. Composition of Rations
Experiments I & 2 Experiment 3
SBCM Tankage Tankage SBOM Suoolement
Ground yellow corn 82.1 89.0 85.5 79.1 78.0
Soybean oil meal (44%) 15.0 --- 7.2 18.0
Tankage (60%) --- 10.0 5.3 --
Commercial Supplement- --- ---- -- -- 22.0
Ground limestone .5 .1 -1.0 ---
Steamed bone meal 1.5 ---- 1.1 1.0
Salt iodizedd) .5 .5 .5 .5
Trace minerals .1 .1 .1 .1
Antibiotic supplement2t .1 .1 .1 .1 --
Vitamin supplement .1 .1 .1 .1 ---
Vitamin B12 supplement/ .1 .1 .1 .1
/The commercial supplement contained a mixture of animal
was fortified with minerals, vitamins and antibiotics.
and plant proteins and
/TM-IO containing 10 grams of oxytetracycline per pound was used in Experiments
I and 2. Aurofac-lO containing 10 grams of chlortetracycline per pound was used
in Experiment 3.
Pfizer Vitamin Supplement No. 2 was used in Experiments I and 2 and Lederle's
Fortafeed 249-C was used in Experiment 3.
-/Pfizer's Vitamin BI2 Supplement (9 ) containing 9 milligrams of 8,2 activity
Results and Discussion
..A.summary of tIe.results obtained in Experiments I and 2 and in Experiment 3
is'presented in tables 2 and 3 respectively,
While none of the differences among ration treatments were statistically
significant it is interesting to note that the pigs fed soybean oil meal gained
faster, consumed more feed and were slightly more efficient in feed conversion
than pigs in. lots 2 and 3.
The pigs in lot I (SBOM) and lot 3 (mixture) gained significantly faster than
pigs in lot 2 tankagee). The differences in feed consumption, although not statis-
tically significant, indicated that the ration containing tankage was relatively
unpalatable. The tankage-fed pigs also required significantly more feed to pro-
duce a pound of gain than pigs in lot 1. The results obtained from Experiments I
and 2 indicate that initial body weight or age exerts a noticeable influence on
ration acceptance and consequently rate of gain. The average initial weight of
pigs in Experiment 2 was approximately 50 pounds less than pigs in Experiment I
and while differences in performance were obtained in Experiment I they were not
as marked as those in Experiment 2.
The average daily gain and feed consumption figures were in favor of pigs in
lot I while the feed efficiency figures indicated that pigs in lot 2 were slightly
more efficient than lot I pigs. While none of the differences were statistically
significant the performance data indicate that It is not necessary for pigs of
this weight to be fed a protein supplement containing a variety of protein sources.
Three experiments were conducted to compare the performance of growing-
finishing pigs fed rations containing various protein supplements.
In Experiment I soybean oil meal, tankage and a soybean oil meal-tankage
mixture were compared. The performance data were in favor of the pigs fed the
soybean oil meal. When the same rations were fed to lighter weight pigs in
Experiment 2, the soybean oil meal-fed pigs and pigs fed the mixture grew more
rapidly and efficiently than the pigs fed tankage.
The comparative performance data of pigs fed rations containing either
soybean oil meal or a commercial protein supplement showed that both groups of
p+gs gained at a comparable rate and with similar efficiency.
I. Combs, G. E., G. Edwards and H. D..Wallace. 1956. A preliminary study on
the value of poultry by-products meal and feather meal as sources of
protein for growing-fattening swine. An. Husb. and Nutr. Mimeo. Series
No. 55-14. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta., Gainesville.
2. Combs, G. E., W, L. Alsmeyer and H. D. Wallace. 1958. Feather meal as a
source of protein for growing-finishing swine. J. Ani. Sci. 17:468-72.
3. Haines, C. E., H, D. Wallace and M. Koger. 1957. The value of soybean oil
meal, low gossypos (degossypolized) solvent processed cottonseed meal,
low gossypol expeller processed cottonseed meal and various blends
thereof in the ration of growing-fattening swine. J. Ani. Sci, 16:12-19.
4. Pearson, A. M., H, 0. Wallace and J, F. Hentges, Jr. 1954. Sunflower-seed
meal as a protein supplement for beef cattle and swine. Fla. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bul. 553,.Gainesville.
Table 2. Performance of Pigs Fed Rations Containing Either Soybean
Oil Meal, Tankage, or a Soybean Oil Meal-Tankage Mixture. (Experiments I & 2)
Av. initial wt., Ibs.
Av. final wt., Ibs.
Av. daily gain, Ibs.
Av. daily feed
Feed required/lb. gain,
Days on test
**Significantly lower than lots I and 3 (P<0.01)
*Significantly higher than lot I (P(0.05)
Table 3. Performance of Pigs Fed Rations Containing Either Soybean
Oil Meal or a Commercial Protein Supplement. (Experiment 3)
Treatment SBOM Commercial Supplement
Lot No. I 2
No. pigs 10 10
Av. initial wt., Ibs. 96.6 97.4
Av. final wt., ibs, 208.2 202.3
Av. daily gain, Ibs. 1.77 1.67
Av. daily feed consumed/pig, Ibs. 6.42 6.09
Feed required/lb. gain, Ibs. 3.68 3.61
Days on test 63 63
400 copies/nr 5 -
_ I I I I