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 Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Brumm, M. C. Articles by Clemens, E. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Brumm, M. C. Articles by Clemens, E. T.

Effects of Feed or Water Restriction, Antibiotic Injection and Receiving Diet Management on Commingled Feeder Pig Performance^1,2,3,

University of Nebraska^,7, Concord 68728 and University of Missouri, Columbia 65211

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to determine the effects of 1) long-acting oxytetracycline injection at market arrival, 2) feed or water access at the auction market and 3) receiving diet management on commingled feeder pig performance. A total of 288 commingled feeder pigs transported over 1,000 km after market management treatments were used in two trials. Pigs given access to feed and water (FW) at the market weighed more (P < .001) following marketing and transport than pigs given water only (W). Pigs given neither feed nor water (N) were intermediate in arrival weight (19.7, 18.7 and 18.9 kg). There was no effect (P > .1) of feed and water offering at the market on final weight (96.6, 95.9 and 96.6 kg), overall average daily gain (.70, .69 and .70 kg/d), overall gain/feed (.31, .31, .32) or percentage death loss (1.0, 2.1 and 4.2%). Injection of long-acting oxytetracycline upon arrival at auction market had no effect (P > .1) on pig weight following marketing and transport (19.0 vs 19.2 kg), final weight (96.1 vs 97.0 kg), percentage death loss (3.4 vs 1.4%) or percentage of pigs treated (3.4 vs 4.9%). Compared to providing ad libitum access to feed, restricting feed intake by floor feeding for the first 7 d post-arrival reduced (P < .01) rate of gain for the first 9 d (–.04 vs .08 kg/d), but overall there was no effect (P > .1) on daily gain (.70 vs .69 kg/d) or gain/feed (.31 vs .31).

¹ Journal series no. 8691, Agric. Res. Div., Univ. of Nebraska.

² Contribution from the Missouri Agric. Exp. Sta., Journal Series No. 10625. Approved by the director.

³ Supported in part by grants from National Pork Producers Council, Des Moines, IA and Pfizer Inc. Lee's Summit, MO.

⁴ Dept. of Anim. Sci., Univ. of Nebraska.

⁵ Dept. of Anim. Sci., Univ. of Missouri.

⁶ Agric. Engineer, USDA-ARS, Bioeng. Res. Unit, Univ. of Missouri.

⁷ Northeast Res. & Ext. Center.