HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Friend, D. W. Articles by MacIntyre, T. M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Friend, D. W. Articles by MacIntyre, T. M.

Paired Feeding and Metabolism Trials Comparing Barrows with Gilts^1,2,

Canada Department of Agriculture, Fredericton, N.B.⁴ and Nappan, N.S.^,5

Abstract

Feeding and metabolism trials were conducted to determine differences in performance between litter-mate Yorkshire barrows and gilts. In the feeding trial a barrow (B) was pair-fed to the daily ad libitum intake of a gilt (G). A second barrow (B-AL) was fed also ad libitum. Although the B-AL barrow did not eat, in total, significantly more feed, its daily intake was greater (P<.01) than that of the gilt which consequently reached market weight 9 days later than the barrow. Limit-feeding the barrows (B) reduced their rate of gain and efficiency of feed conversion below that of the gilts to whose daily feed intake they were pair-fed. In spite of their lower rate of gain, these barrows had a greater (P<.01) total backfat thickness than the gilts. A calculated carcass index showed the best commercial carcass to be that of the ad libitum fed gilt. There was an apparent increase in the degree of unsaturation of the backfat associated with feed restriction of barrows.

Coefficients of digestibility for dry matter and crude protein did not differ between barrows and gilts. When barrows and gilts were each fed 42 g N daily, N-retention was, respectively, 12.6 g and 12.9 g daily. Too low an energy intake during the metabolism trial was thought to have restricted greater N deposition by the gilts.

¹ Contribution No. 228, Experimental Farm., Nappan, Nova Scotia.

² The technical assistance by R. M. Grant, R. T. Ripley and J. G. Allen is gratefully acknowledged.

³ Present address: Animal Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa 3, Ontario.

⁴ Research Station.

⁵ Experimental Farm.