‘I I

I ‘ I 4
I X I I I
‘ l ; ‘t‘ I A ‘t ‘1'! u'n‘.';':‘¢‘4' ‘n‘a‘x'
"3 'H' ‘1‘31 )‘r JOIIAC‘VJtv‘lAcI ‘av-
00“ «A: - I nouact-DnllJtl II
I 1 J l V ' 0 a a .7 . , . ‘ J ‘ l I l ,
I‘ll’I‘Ollp . ¢ A,
O 3 I I 'A‘J't

O
a 1 I
I I o v I t I
n l 1‘: I ' I t» t
I o l l $

.
¢ I A
I C l | I l ' ) O J
l I l a d I I v
V I ‘ J O
l o
't I o a o
n I n I I u o I
y l i i

l 1 i ‘ n 1" 3 l 1 I 8 3 A I 3
1 5 a 1 4 6 a J O 1 a 0 A b I x I 1
l . ' ‘ O S J C Q I
‘ ' z a 1

I I

I ; A 1 I
1 I | J a
w .‘l

t a
c

; fl‘n d C 3
I I j I

a . I l

A I l 1 ‘ J I d ‘
l i‘! I 1 A l l a
jfiidVldflzl:

J I x s 1 a I i i I 3 I I

‘ a Q i l 1 l ” l I

! l 1 I
1 l q i a

l l 3 d a E I l a 9 ( I R J l
J I a o 1 a o l i v A 1 o J I v . I 1 1'. I n I '

”in-11.914 a1 7 9 zap-14.;o-24105‘!

I a s , I 1 n N I 4 1'! ’

l J 1 1 d 1 I 1 1 I I i V

Iqr-ig

10‘
,Th
:4 P

x . 1 ; '
1 I l ‘ 1 fl 3 l l 9
d ! u I-l i V 1.4 1 ! 111
.4‘i A u I 3.: 1 1 4 7 1 X
- s I v a I 3

. 1 ‘ ‘ <

I I
i z I 1 "
V! J a
1.3. :
i

i 1 ' l
‘ 1191‘ l 3 1
3-1 N 6 I E

I I
1 i ‘ i‘
3_Q 4

.

E
‘93

9' a

.-1 s]

5::cyxo‘2aezan

ia;.«:¢13aasu‘
1! 33-. av‘l'li

E u 6
! lfué-
a :3; uagxaa
’ i6_! 9 haaVo-nyd
JIIII! ' : lul!r a
310 :1:

l
n
1*.
4 Ann ”:33,”
. {A 51:: a-Iattu 21
i J 1'! O i G 3 i 3 2‘1 1 I I 9
I Z i I H A «‘1': 1 I 1‘1 1-!
1 3‘4 3 N I i‘flwfi‘u U S J Q
‘ A 1 1 J 4-" l ‘ 1 7 i
; Vi;J’O i d

2
.a‘rnrv 6333'.
:xava¢"o.a;.ov
'2zo§.'.|.<lvun!

 

t.‘

r {a

no“)

; *4.“ nag—‘7:

‘p’_v’.v‘ ’25.: .--.-‘i v A .1

 

 

 

 

 

 

'{nl'll‘l‘filllllllll‘ «(I

'IHE RELATIONSHIP 01' m NUTRITIVE RATIO
0! m RATION '10 'IHE RATE
0! GAIN INPIGS

Thesis for degree of H. S.

Inchigan State college

Willis Henry Egg};

Animal Husbandry

1939

'IHE RMOHEIP 01’ m NU‘IRITIVE RATIO
OI'IHBRATIONTO‘JHERATEOI

GAIHINPIGS

A THESIS
mm '10 IAGULTY
OI
MICHIGAN STATE com
01‘
MCUUIURE AND APPLIED 8611910!
B!
WILLIS HENRY BASH
IN
PARTIAL WT or m 12mm
FOR THE DEERE 01' MASTER OF SCIEJCI
IN
ANIMAL HU$ANDRY

EAST LANSING

JULY 1939

THEfflS

III

zreface

This thesis reports a study of the relationship of the nutri-
tive ratio of the rations fed to various lots of swine and the rate
of gain nude by these lots.

During the study of nutrition relative to seine feeding,
it has been assumed that there is a relationship between various
nutritive ratios fed to swine and the rate these seine gained,
particularly at different age and veigit levels. However, in spite
of this assumption, there is very little data available which :0qu
prove this relatimship on the basis of a statistical analysis.
line data taken fm previous experiments performed at the Iichigan
Agricultural Experimtmt Station and at the Iowa Agricultural
Experiment Station tore used as a basis of making computations
and conclusions contained in this paper.

he data selected was not originally designed for this
study, but was such that it was readily adaptable for use in the
study of this relationship. It was taken fran nine experiments
which included six hundred eighty-three pigs fed at the lichigan
Station and one experiment psi-famed at the Iowa Station which
included fifty pigs, making a total of ten experiments and seven
hundred thirty-three pigs fed in the experiments frun which the
data were used.

The author is very grateful for the constructive

critiein and suggestions offered by Professor Brown, Professor
Ire-en, and Dr. I. D. Baton in the composition of this paper.

12281313

IV

Table of Content;

Preface

Introduction

Table 1 - Analysis of leads

Experimental Data. Michigan Experiments.

Experiment I - On buttemilk feeding in the winter
of 1936-37

Experiment II - 0n skimmilk feeding in the winter
of 1933-34

Table 2 - Buttermilk reading in the Winter of 1936-37

Experiment III - 0n buttennilk feeding in the winter
of 1935—36

Table 3 - Skimilk feeding in the Winter of 1933-34
Table 4 - Buttermilk Feeding in the Winter of 1935-36

figure I - Rate of Gain and Nutritive Ratio for Weight
Group from 49 to 80 Pounds

Experiments on Pasture - 1933 to 1936

Table 5 - Corn and Barley with Varying Preportione
of Tankage on Rape Pasture - 1933

Table 6 - Corn and Barley with Varying Proportions
of Skimmilk and Tankage on Rape Pasture - 1933

Table 7 - Barley with Varying Preportione of Tankage
on Pasture - 1934

Table 8 - Corn with Varying Pmportione of Skimmilk
on Rape Pasture - 1934

Table 9 - Gorn with Varying Pmportiona of Tankage
on Rape and Alfalfa Pastures - 1935

Table 10 - Corn with Varying Preportione of Buttermilk
and Tankage on Rape Pasture - 1936

Figure II - Rate of Gain and Nutritive Ratio for Weight
Group from 40 to 48 Pounds

22

10

12

13

14

15

16

1'7

Kata.

.... ... 1p

.nnW’%L.EE ... ... theh'rh’hépfiluii Li. I

 

Figure III - Rate of Gain and Nutritive Ratio for
Weight Group from 49 to 80 Pounds

Figure IV - Rate of Gain and Nutritive Ratio for
Weight Group from 81 to 120 Pounds

Figure V - Rate of Gain and Nutritive Ratio for
Weight Group from 120 Pounds Upward

Iowa Experiment
Table 11 - Experiment on Methods of feeding
Discussion 1 1
Table 12 - Summary of Correlation Coefficients

Conclusions

Page

24

25

26

19

27
29

33

m RELATIONSHIP 01' 1113 NUTRITTVE RATIO

OI‘IHERATIONTO'IHERATE

0) GAIN IN PIGS

W

The nutritive ratio received by swine during the feeding
period is of great econanic importance. Protein is usually the

most expensive nutrient fed in the ration. than ordinary grains,

such as corn, make up the main part of the ration, the rate and
economy of gains are materially increased by including protein-rich
supplements. Because of its high cost, we wish to feed the least
amount of protein that will give the most rapid and economical

gains. Detennining the most economical level of protein to feed
pigs has been a major problem of swine nutrition and has resulted
in rather definite feeding standards for pigs of different weigits
based on the ratio of protein to other nutrients included in the
ration.

'Ihe nutritive ratio is the ratio of the digestible
protein to the digestible carbohydrates, plus fat times 2.25 in the
total feed consumed during the feeding period under consideration.

The term "rate of gain" as used in this paper refers to
the average daily gain made by each pig for a certain period.

It is important to note that the kind of protein received

by swine has a marked influence on the rate of gains. Hawever,

the data selected were obtained frat experiments which contained a fairly

- 2 ..
complete protein, except a few check lots which received cereal grains
fed alone on pasture.

Considerable difficulty was experienced in selecting data
which were adaptable for this study. Correlation coefficients of the
nutritive ratio and the rate of gains for the pigs were canputed using
the entire feeding period involving various ages and weights of pigs
fed fran weaning to marketing time. The resulting correlation
coefficients were not significant for any of the computations made.

The data were then divided according to the age of the pigs.
Complete data were available for each twenty-eight days for the
lichigan data and each thirty days for the Iowa data, the same as
for the entire feeding period, giving the number of pigs, weights,
daily gains made per pig in each lot, and the feeds consumed by each
lot.

Correlation coefficients were then computed on the basis of
the shorter feeding periods, using the twenty-eight-day period for the
Michigan data and the thirty-day period for the Iowa data. The result-
ing correlation coefficients were significant only when the groups
included pigs of comparable weights. When further studied, it was
learned that there was a wide variation in the rate of gains made by
various lots, particularly at different age and weight levels.

Another set of cunputations was made using the shorter
periods, but grouped according to weights. The weight data for the
short periods were arbitrarily divided into groups ranging frcn forty

to forty-eight pounds, forty-nine to eighty pounds, eighty-one to one

- 3 ..
hundred twenty pounds, and upward from one hundred twenty pounds, at the
beginning of the respective periods. No group of pigs exceeded a final
weight for the last period of one hundred eighty pounds for the Michigan
data or two hundred forty pounds for the Iowa data. The procedure
followed on the basis of the weight groupings is shown by the following
example: A lot of pigs averaging forty-two pounds at the time they
started the experiment would be in the first-weight group, ranging from
forty to forty-sign pounds. If they started the next twenty-eight-day
period with an average weight of fifty-five pounds, they would be in
the second-weight group, which ranges from forty-nine to eignty pounds.
Now suppose during this twenty-eight days they gained an average of only
twenty-three pounds, allowing than to start the third period at an
average weight of seventy-eight pounds, they would still come within
the weight group of forty-nine to eighty pounds even thougi they were
in the third feeding period. On the other hand, the majority of pigs

passed from one weight group to the next in each feeding period.
he methOd of grouping will be easily understood as one
studies the data.
The formula used in canputing the correlation coefficient

is the ordinary linear Pearson formula and is as follows:

- £52,

fl/xj 3 8x :1 7"
(JEW- EH [Xi'- LlE711]

 

 

- 4 ..
Wx y” is the symbol for the correlation coefficient, '2' the symbol
for summations, 'x' the symbol for the average daily gain made by each
pig in each lot by weight groups, and 'y' the symbol for the nutritive
ratio consumed by each corresponding lot of pigs.

The nutritive ratios of the feeds used in these experiments

were computed on the basis of the analyses shown in Table 1.

Table l - Analysis of feeds
Hi chigan State College Data”

 

 

Digestible Digestible Carbohydrates
lied Protein andw rats Combined
Corn '7. 0% '72. 0%
Barley 9 . 3 69 . 4
Tankage 56. 4 21. 6
Skimilk 3. 5 5.1
Buttemilk 3. 3 5. 8
Alfalfa 10. 6 39 . 7

 

 

 

 

 

tAnelyses from Morrison's "leads and feeding'.

Iowa State College Data”

 

———v

 

 

 

Digestible Digestible Carbohydrates
___;__..a “me W
Corn 6.63% 71.08%
Wheat Iliddlings 13.27 56.32
Buttermilk 3.32 ‘° - 5.57
Tankage 45.15 19.36
Alfalfa _- 5.59 28.27

 

 

 

 

 

hAnalysesvfrom Iowa Research Bulletin No. 118, page 2%.

 

 

---- .--

-5-

~ Marinated Data

M1 chi eriments

Meriment I - 0n buttemilk feedig in the winter of 1936-37.
This experiment was designed to study the effect of buttermilk fed in

 

different daily allowances with corn and alfalfa self-fed to pigs in
the dry lot.

Lots I, II, III, and IV were self-fed corn and alfalfa free-
choice to all lots with tankage hand-fed at the rate of one-half pound
per pig, for each day to Lot I and buttemilk hand-fed daily to lots
II, III, and IV. Lats V, VI, and VII were self-fed a mixture of
corn and ground alfalfa with a daily allowance of buttemilk handefed.

There were seven lots of pigs tested with nine pigs in each
lot. All lots in the Michigan experiments were concluded when the
pigs had acquired an average weight of one hundred eighty pounds.

The relationship of the nutritive ratio and the rate of
gain showed a correlation coefficient of -.71 for the weight group
ranging from forty-nine to eighty pounds, -.39 for the weight group
from eighty to one hundred twenty pounds, and +.48 for the weight
group upward from one hundred twenty pounds.

The data used in this experiment are sumarized in Table 2.

Qeriment II - On skimilk tagging in the winter of 1933-34.

This experiment was conducted for the purpose of studying the effect
of skimilk hand-fed in varying daily allowances, also with different
preportions of corn and alfalfa for pigs in the dry lot.

'file corn and alfalfa were each fed free-choice in Lots I, II,

III, and IV, but mixed and self-fed in Late V, VI, VII, and VIII. This

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3... «3 3e 34. 54 3a a a

as as «8 was. 34 on." a e
one an e9 36 2.. 2% o a
8a» 3 .Re and 8. 3A a e
3e 5 9a 36 us. Be a u
now 3. a2. 36 3. 3a a .e.

c.8H 3 33 $6 «a. on” a a h
as. one at. £6 a. a3 a a
an. 2. 8e 84. 3 Be a a
an. an m8 ate 9. no a a e
8a» «a 3a 3... 84 no a e
82 me new we.» 8. no a n
e: 8 a8 36 on. 3d a a

same 8 3a was 8. a a a a
8e 3 was $6 3. Q a a
a2. 3 98 «a.» 8. S o a
one 3 a $6 on. 3 a a
none as one 3.. S. 2 a a
«an 3 8e 8.... 8. 3. a a
Ba 8 one and we. no a a

93: 8 5e 8% as. as a . H H
«as 8 8e and no. 8 a a
«as an o8 86 no. 8 a o
as. as $6 2.6 a. 9 a a
$3 «a. Re 84.. «a. 2. a e
we: 3 new and 3. a. a a
one .2. a8 86 B. 8 o a

04$ 8 can no.» 2.. av a a H

”H “352: @2503
.358. .898. .aeaaom. .3535 33m 58 ~38 3.: H335 aura
335a. 33.538 £3: £8 23 uses A out»: 32.5 we .8 a8 32

 

Slammn 90 Hana on» ad mdgooh Adana—pm a. a 0H3

 

- a
>- -7
--
w- .
--"

- 7 -

test includes eight lots with seven pigs in each lot. The data computed
showed a correlation coefficient of -.70 for the weight group from
forty-eight to eighty pounds, -.28 for the group from eighty-one to

one hundred twenty pounds, and -. 57 for the group upward from one
hundred twenty pounds. I

The data are merited in Table 3.

Experiment III - On buttermilk feeding in the winter of 1935-36.

'lhis experiment was set up to study the effect of feeding buttemilk

 

in varying daily allowances, self-feeding a mixture of corn and ground
alfalfa to lots I, II, and III, and self-feeding corn and alfalfa hay
to lots IV, V, and VI.

There were six lots with nine pigs in each lot. The weight
group ranging from forty-nine to eighty pounds showed a correlation
coefficient of -.l9, the next heavier group was ~.59, and the last
group was -.l4.

no data of this experiment are shown in Table 4.

Because the three foregoing experiments were of a similar
nature in the feeding methods and the feeds used, the data were canbined
and the correlation coefficient was canputed for each weight group
using the entire data of the three experiments combined.

The weight group from forty-nine to eighty pounds had a correla-
tion coefficient of -.42, the next group, a correlation coefficient
of «16 and the last weight group, a correlation coefficient of -.17.

The relationship between the nutritive ratio and rate of gain for the

combined group frm forty-nine to eiQIty pounds is shown graphically

in figure I.

 

 

H66 H66 666H 2.6 H6.H 66H a 6
6H«H 666 666 36 H6.H 66H 6. a
86 666 63 66;. 664 66H 6 6
H66 6H6 86H H66 664 66H a 6
36 HQ. 666 664 e6H a 6
6.66 6H 63 3.6 e6.H 66H a 6

S «6» H66 66.H 66H 6 H 5
666 66H 5.6 666 6a. 66H a 6
65H 66H «66 66.6 6o.H 6HH a a
666 66H 6C 86 H6. 8H 6 6
666 83 use 34. 66. 8H 6 6
86H a 666 66.6 66.H 8H 6. 6
62H 66 666 :6 $.H 66H 6 6
666 66H 666 66.6. 66.H «HH a 6

8 66 2.3 666 66.H 2H s H E
666 66H 666 666 66. 66 a 6
65H 66H 36 3.6 66. 8 a. a
666 63 6H6 66.6 66. 66 a 6
666 66 26 66.6 «a. 66 a 6
866 66 666 5.6 66.H S a 6
62H z. 666 66.6 664 66 a 6
666 as HE. 66.6 8. 66 a. 6

8 9 666 6H6 HfH 66 a. H H
666 6HH 3.6 66.6 66. 66 a. 6
65H 66 86 2.6 66. l 66 a a
666 HH 666 66.6 t. 66 a 6
666 6a. 666 666 66. S a 6
«666 S 666 66.6 66.H 6.6 a 6
63H 66 6H6 66.6 SA 66 a 6
666 66 2.6 H66 84 66 a. 6

8H 3 86 66.6 SA 66 a H H

"H JfleflflfllJ-alfluaea
.6658. .6658. .6698. .6688. 36.6 38 6H3 6- H-HaHaH 66E e
6683.6. salsa flH-eHa E8 253.35 oat-5 .6325 we .8 a3 66¢.le .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33” Ho been; an» H3 50% an!“ I n 0H2

 

 

Q. 0

..7.
l
.
. -6.
---.
6
c.

 

 

 

 

 

_- 6HH 666H 66.6 66.H 66H 6 6
666 66H 66HH 66.6 66.H 6HH 6 6
6666 66 83 66.6 66.H 66H 6 6
66H6 66. 666 66.6 6H.H H6H 6 6
666 66 663 66.6 66. H6H 6 6

6H 66. 666H 66.6 66.H 66H 6 H HHH
6H6H 6HH 666H 66.6 66.H 66 6 6
666 6HH 666 66.6 66. 66 6 6
6H66 66 666 66.6 66.H 66, 6 6
6666 66 666 66.6 66.H 66 6 6
666 66 666 66.6 66. 66 6 6

66H 66 666 66.6 SA 66 6 H H
6H6H 66 6H6 66.6 66.H 66 6 6
666 66H 666 6H.6 66. 66 6 6
6666 66 666 66.6 6H.H 66 6 6
6666 66 666 66.6 66. H6 6 6
666 66 666 66.6 66. 66 6 6

66H 66 666 66.6 66.H 66 6 H H

o
“H “.6566. €668.66
.6698. .6658. 666866. .6698. 6366 «H66 6H3 6: H3366 6666 .
66366.6 6:636:66 can: 6.86 66.36.56: 66662.6 666622 66 .6: 66.6 6366.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

66.666H no 633- 666 6H 656.66 £38366 .. 6 6H3

 

6... .

- 10 -

arguments on pasture: 'Ihis group of data includes six
experiments conducted on rape and on alfalfa pastures. Two of these
experiments were conducted in the summer of 1933, two in 1934, and
one in each 1935 and 1936.

The experiment of 1933, including seven lots of twelve pigs
each, was conducted to study the effect of feeding corn and barley
with varying quantities of tankage to pigs on rape pasture.

'ihe data are shown in Table 5.

The other experiment of 1933, including nine lots of fourteen
pigs each, was conducted to study the effect of feeding corn and barley
with varying quantities of skimilk and tankage to pigs on rape pasture.

file data are shown in Table 6.

The next experiment, including six lots of ten pigs each,
was conducted in 1934 to study the effect of varying quantities of
tankage with barley on rape or alfalfa pasture.

'me data are shown in Table 7.

Another experiment, including four lots of twelve pigs
each, was conducted in 1934 to study the effect of varying quantities
of skimilk fed with corn on rape pasture.

1116 data are shown in Table 8.

me next experiment, including eight lots of twelve pigs
each, was conducted in 1933 to study the effect of varying preportions
of tankage fed with corn on rape or alfalfa pasture.

The data are shown in Table 9.

‘Ihe last experiment on rape pasture for which data was used in
this study included eight lots of twelve pigs each and was conducted in

1936 to study the effect of feeding corn with varying proportions of

- 11 ..
buttemilk and tankage on rape pasture.

The data are shown in Table 10.

The pasture experiments were all grouped and cOanutations
were made on the basis of weight groupings as in the winter feeding
tests previously discussed.

The nutritive ratio was computed only for the concentrate
feeds consumed. 'Dne amount of pasture consmned was not taken into
consideration as it was impossible to measure or accurately estimate
the mount consulted by any one lot of pigs.

The correlation coefficient was -,72 for the weight group
ranging from forty to forty-eight pounds, -.75 for the group from
fortyonine to eighty pounds, -.66 for the group fran eighty-one
to one hundred twenty pounds, and -.34 for the group upward from
one hundred twenty pounds.

The data for these experiments are shown in Tables 5 to
10, inclusive.

The relationship between the nutritive ratio and rate of
gain for the different weight gmupe is shown graphically in

figures 11, III. IV, and V.

 

-12-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

66 666H 66.6 6H.H 66H 6H 6
66 H66H 66.6 66.H H6H 6H 6
66 6666 66.6 66.H . 66H 6H 6
6666 66.6 6H.H . 6HH 6H 6
66 666H 66.6 66.H 66H 6H .6
66.H 6H66 66.6 66.H 6HH , 6H 6
6H 6666 66.6 66.H 66H 6H H HHH
66 6666 66.6 66.H 66 6H 6
66 6666 66.6 66.H 66H 6H 6
66 666H 66.6 6H.H 66 6H 6
86H 66.6 . 66.H 66 6H 6
66H , 666H HH6 66 .H 8H 6H 6
66H 66HH 66.6 66.H 66 6H 6
66 666H 66.6 66.H 66 6H H HH
66 666H 66.6 66. 66 6H 6
66 666H 66.6 6H.H 66 6H 6
H6 6HHH 66.6 66.H 66 6H 6
666H 66.6 66. 66 6H 6
66H 666H 66.6 66.H 3 6H 6
66 666 x 66.6 66. H6 6H 6
H6 666H 6H.6 66.H 66 6H H H
662365 6665663 . 6H .3533 .3965
.3365 66696 6.86 666866. 32.6 6:66 6:66 .6: H335 668
66336.6 6886 663.6 .66 .586 653.366 666.6666 6666666 66 .65 «mi

 

666H .. 92566.6 693 66 enough. .66 38.3.3698 65.666» 5.? banana 6s- 38 .. 6 6.36.6

 

 

-'-

 

 

 

-13-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6666 HH6H , 66.6 66.H 66H 6H 6

666H H6H6 6H.6 66.H 66H 6H 6

8H6 666H 66.6 66.H 66H 6H 6

6H 666H 66.6 66.H 66H 6H 6
66 666H 66.6 66.H 66H 6H 6
66 6666 H6.6 H6.H 66H 6H 6
6666 66.6 66.H 66H 6H 6

66 666H H6..6 66.H 66H 6H 6
66 6666 66.6 66.H 66H 6H H
6666 666H 66.6 66.H 66H 6H 6

66HH 666H 66.6 66.H 66 6H 6

6666 666H 66.6 66.H 66 6H 6

66 6666 66.6 66.H 66H 6H 6
66 6666 66.6 66.H 66H 6H 6
66 666H H6.6 66.H 66 6H 6
83 66.6 66.H 66 6H 6

66H 66H6 6H.6 66.H 8H 6H 6
66 666H H6.6 H626 66 6H H
6666 66HH 66.6 66.H 66 6H . 6

66HH 666H 66.6 66.H 66 6H 6

6666 66HH 66.6 66.H 66 6H 6

66 666H 66.6 66. 66 6H 6
66 666H 66.6 66.H 66 6H 6
66 66HH 66.6 66. 66 6H 6
666H 66.6 66. 66 6H 6

66H 666H 66.6 66.H 66 6H 6
66 66HH 66.6 66. 66 6H H

666566. .6658. 666666.:
666856. 666586 6:666 .6658. 6666 6:66 .6. H6633 668
663.666 6HH-566 65666 E8 2:6 6666: 666.6626 6.666664 «6 .6:

 

666H - 663666 6666 66 6666666. 666 £66566 66 6636666666 66.66666 566 666666 666 6.86 c 6 626.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.onmvludn 6.36.6.7 no 663 :63: .6 66.H 6966M. 3.36666 27.6 no 662- 666." HJ.
666 66.6 66.H H6H 6H 6 _
6 666 66.6 66.H 66H 6H 6
666H 66.6 66.H 66H 6H 6
6 666 66.6 66.H 66H 6H 6
66 6H6 66.6 66.H 66H 6H H B
6666 66.6 66.H 66H 6H 6
66 6666 66.6 66.H 66H 6H 6
66 666H 66. 66.H H6H 6H 6
6666 66.6 66.H 6H 6H 6 _
66 666H 66.6 H6.H 66H 6H 6
66H 666H 66.6 66.H 66H 6H H 6HH
. 666H 66.6 66.H 66 6H 6.
4 H6 666H 66.6 66.H 66 6H 6
1 66 6H6H 66.6 66.H 66 6H 6
. 666H 66.6 H6.H 66 6H 6
66 6H6H 66.6 66.H 66 6H 6
66H 93 66.6 66.H 66 6H H H
6H6H 66.6 66. 66 6H 6
66 666 66.6 66.H 66 6H 6
66 666 66.6 6H.H 66 6H 6
666 66.6 66. 66 6H 6
66 666 66.6 66.H 66 6H 6
66 HH6 H6.6 66. 66 6H H H
76966. .3686. “H .6658. .3966.
.6698. 6.686 6.36 36.6 6666 6H3 .66 H123 66E
6636.66. 6986 66HH-fl 253.36: 6666.66 6666666 no .6.— 63 63.86

 

6666H - 6.36666 66 6686.66 66 33666626 636.36 56. 63.36 .. 6 6H6-.6

-15-

L

 

 

 

 

«3 2.» 84. 8.3 33 3 a
«8 98 and 3.3 «3 3 a
3 8... 86 3.3 23 3 3 >3
33 83 SJ 3.3 .3 3 ¢
38 83 3.... 3.3 33 3 n
83 33 8.0 on... 3 3 a
93 33 mm.» 9.3 o3 3 3 33
88. 83 3... 3.3 33 3 w
38 83 36 3.3 8 3 n
83 83 3;. 3.3 3 3 a
33 83 8.... «33 3 3 3 3
33 08 35 3.3 3 3 3
.33 3. z.» 3.3 3 3 n
83 3a 3.0 8.3 no 3 .9.
8 a: 36 8.3 3 3 3 H
3 3.38. .388. A
.3555 3:88 .858. 33 38 33 .3 3333 33
$3.89 . 325$ , flow 3.332: $322 8324 no .3 23 53.53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33 - 23.3 25. 8 33$ .3 .8338.” 9:3.» a:- 38 .. o 32

 

6.33333 3393 no 333333 93533 9333.? no «pom-n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33 . 8.3 3.3 .483 3 m
8 E3 . 8.» 8.3 83 3 8
88 83 8.3 53 3 m
8 83 8 .o 3 .3 83 3 n
3 3m 8... 3.3 83 3 3
8 08 8.3 8.3 03 3 n
83 8.... 8.3 33 3 m
8 33 8.3 8. 33 3 3 >3
_ 93 8.3 8. 83 3 o
8 83 32. 8.3 «3 3 3.
83 8 8.3 3.3 83 3 o
8 83 8.3. 8.3 83 3 a
33 383 8.8 33.3 3.3 3 3.
m3 83 8.0 . 8.3 83 3 n
8 33 33.8 3.3 .3 3 a
83 8.3 3.3 33 3 3 333
383 8.3 8. 3o 3 m
3 83 8.» 8. 8 3 3.
83 8.3 8. 8 3 o
8 83 8.3. 8. 8 3 a
83 83 3.0 3.3 8 3 3.
33 2.3 8.» 3.3 8 3 a
8 333 5.3. 8. 8 3 a
83 8.3 8.3 3» 3 3 33
8.. 8.3 8. 8 3 .m
9. 83 8.» 8.3 8 3 .s
83 8.3 8. 8 3 8
3 88 8.3. 8. 8 3 t
83 83 3.... 3.3 8 3 .3.
m3 383 8.» 3.3 8 3 n
8 83 8.3. 8. 8 3 a
8. 8:3 8. 8 3 3 3
. .858. .888. .3 385.9: .8523.
3.32: 38 58 3:3 3...... 3338 .3: 33333 83.3 .
8.33:. 2596 83323.. x 25 3.33 A 8282 83.322 : 3o .3 «3 83.8.3

 

.93 - 8.333344123- o... ....... -31.... o .33.... m .44. a» 33:3; .. . 4.-.

i

 

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88 3333 5.33 8.3 333 3 m
2.8 333 3a.» 3.3 83 3 3.
83 833 8.3. 3.3 8 3 c
83 8.0 3.3 83 3 a
83 83 3.3. 333 83 3 3
33 83 38¢ 9.3 8 3 a
83 083 3.3 «3.. 8 3 w
83 333.3 8.0 8.3 8 3 3 333
9.8 88 8.3 8.3 93. 3 m
83 3a 8.... 8. m3. 3 3.
83 8w 8.3. 8. 3.3. 3 o
3.3 83 8.... 3.3 3.3. 3 a
33 833 8.... 3.3 m3. 3 3.
8 83 8.3. 8. «3. 3 n
98 3.3 3. 03. 3 a
8. 83 8.» 8. 33. 3 3 33
33.8 08 3.3. 3. 3 3 m
83 33. 8.» 8.3 3 3 3
$3 33. 8.3 8. 3 3 a
3 3.8 3.» 3.3 8 3 a
a3 88 .86 8.3 3 3 ¢
8 08 «ad 8. 3 3 a
83. 8.3 8. 3 3 a
8 8m 8.? 8. 3 3 .3 3
.3 3.338.: 38823.
3835.: 38523. 3883. 338 38 3338 .33. 333.33 . 83.3 .
owl—38.3. .3350335 Ecol 0533.323 03.334 03.334 . no .0: :3 33.323

 

 

83 .. 9333.3 233 8 8.35.3. 3.5 3333335 no .8283 3333.3: 3333 3.38 .. 03 .3313.

 

 

 

a
‘ , . fl
, - , . , . ,- - - < - .
‘ .
. . . , . c a . n . , . . . I . . . - A _ . '
, - , _ .. . 4,- . y . .
v - . . o I - Q - . . . . n . . . n o . a . .
—.. .. » _ - - . ‘ .n ‘
' ' ‘ ' - ' 7‘ c . -. n. . < . - -
.
u
a
- . , ‘ . , . , . _ 7‘ , , . . ~‘ - ‘ - . - - . - _. . ‘
.

 

 

.l 211' ‘qill’li‘ll 1‘11 ‘1 III I

 

-13..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#8 98 ad. .0 g .H 8H NH o

88 $.OH .99 .H an NH H

hboH flux. 8.0 $5 oH 8H NH 0

08H ”DH 3 .h on oH HiH NH 5

08H onDH ON .0 N" .H 3H NH o

3 86H 8 .N. . G0.H 3H NH 0
8 QNNH as. .6 Nu. oH 8H NH d.
on ”OOH an .0 goH 54H NH n
83 _ 3:3 8. 8H 3 a

5 has 8 .§ #0 .H an NH H

3 ammnsofi «Sang
.3508 590$ .888. 33% 38 .33 $3 .325 38
amnion. 53395 38 25:39: 58:4 0234 Ho . on eon venom

 

333:8 0 OH OHAUB

 

-19-

W1

‘Ihis experiment was conducted at the Iowa Agricultural Experi-
ment Station to study various feeding methods for pigs fed in the dry
lot.

Each period of the experiment was thirty days in length and
included ten lots of five pigs each.

Lot I was self-fed free—choice; Lot II was hand-fed three times
each day; Lot III was hand-fed twice each day; Lot IV was hand-fed twice
each day with the feed allowance based on digestible crude protein,
digestible carbohydrates, and water per one hundred pounds of live
weight at different age levels; Lot V was fed in the same manner as
Lot IV; Lot VI was fed on the Kellner system based on digestible true
protein and starch equivalent per one thousand pounds of live weight at
different age levels; Lot VII was fed according to the Wolff-Lehmann
standard based on the digestible crude protein and digestible carbo-
hydrate equivalent as specified per one thousand pounds of live weight
at different age levels; Lots VIII and II were self-fed free-choice
style; Lot I was self-fed the modified free-choice style which included
three self-feeders containing various feeds, the mixture in the feeder
depending upon the condition of the pigs.

'me correlation coefficient for the group from forty to forty-
eight pounds was -.54, for the group from forty-nine to eighty pounds,
-.36, for the group from eighty-one to one hundred twenty pounds, -.02,

and for the group upward from one hundred twenty pounds, +.10.

he data for this experiment are shown in Table 11.

1 “A New Ieeding lethod and Standards for Iattening Young Swine", by John
Marcus Ward. Research Bulletin 118. Iowa Agricultural Experiment
Station. 1929.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S B can .34. 8. a m
a B 8... 3.0 as. w, n. a a.
B 2. «d. 2.... no. em a u
8 8a a nod 34 2. a a
3 8." 98 2.4 no.” E. n v
Q. o3 3o 94 no." _ 8 n m
8H 2.. 8.. 3.... 84 no a a
and m3 8... 8.... on.” no a a man
3 a 8 «on 36 no; 8 a 3
3. 8n 3 8e 54 34 no a a
«a 8 Sn 3;. no. 3 a o
3 5 new 3.... 3. 3 a a
2. 2. new 5% 2.. 8 n o
3 2. 8» SJ 2.. 8 a a
3 t. on» 2.... 3. B o e
no 3: a.» 34 «a. 8 n n
8” and one on... 34 H... a a
1.. X: on. 34 84 mm a .— HH
3. o R 5» $4 9.. 8. a 3
8 8m «.3 new 8... 2.. 3 a a
3 3 new we... 6.. me a a
3 3 can SJ a... me n s
8 no one 3.» 5. 3 n o
8 3 3»... SJ 3. 9 a a
n... 8 3m 34 3. 3 a e
an no.” 3» 3.4 5. we a n
2. 3H 3» SJ 3. 9. a a
on 8a 8a 83 3. a. o H H
} “Illln T .135 L I larval-flu
Anagv .ueuuofl .3508 .358. .8563 322 38 33 £— dflflfl 38
unique 53.3.5 235 9331 88 33232 auto: omen-$4 no .8. To.” colon

 

382.5 «o 805.: .8 8.385 .. 3 .25

 

-21-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 3 «2. $6 3.3 «3 a o
S 2. 08 8.5 $3 2.3 a a HP
8 2. m3 3.» 8.3 3.3 a a
ma 3 3.. 36 3.3 2.3 n o F
3 em on 3.. 36 3.3 «3 a 3
3 9 n3. 8... 8.3 33 n o
8 «a 3... 8.0 no. 33 n a
«a no «3 3.» 3.3 «3 n a
m 8: 3.. 36 3.3 «3 o o
3 9 a; 8.» on." m3 a v
8 A a a3 8;. an; 33 a n >
8 n3 3 8o 2..» 3.3 33 a . 3
3 8n 3 8o 34. #3 3 a a
3 3 was 34. 3.3 83 n m
8 8 m3 9-...» 3a. «a a a
8 8 can 86 no.3 33 n o
3 03 a 3.0 $3 33 a a
n3 e3 8.. 3.... 8.3 «3 a v
o3 «3 2... 66 3.3 33 a n
8 E. «as $6 $3 «3 o a
5 8 3a 36 8.3 «3 a a 3
o3 a 3 3... SJ 8. 8 m 3
8 8» «a a? 36 33 n3 0 a 33
..H “Iva“ _uafl. J 11
.3563 Anon-6m- .858. .3555 .8368 33m x. 38 338 in 3333 .3.-
omuafia 3383-5 vaca— 3734 38 2.35.3- .9.qu oat-:4 no .3 .aMaL 32am

3:580 .. .2 36a.

 

 

 

4335.85 x22 85283 £56m cm 3 2. aoh .598 330.5
ofipwm opapgppaz_cqa nfiao.uo opmm

33m 053.352
3" S" a" mu N." on n" 2 n u H
n.

 

o.

- 22 -

m.

 

0.H

 

*.H

H ouswah

£99 Jed pentafi spunod

.AmemaanonHm onapmomv .monsomnm¢ on ow Edna nacho unwams
capmm opupuhpzz and name Mo opwm

03% 3323.52
S" 3" m" m" b" on m” «u n n a
1 . n.

 

w.

m.

o.H

 

N.H

¢.H

 

HH ohzmwh

Rap Jed pants? spunod

.Amaumsanmnkm mnspmmmv meadow om Op av Souk macaw unwams
oHpmm o>aaunpaz can name no opwm

32m 9.3232
Z" S" on m" i R on «1 n2
0.

 

0.H

- 24 -

N.H

 

 

€.H

HHH Guzman

flap 18d pautafi spunod

.Amuqmafiaonxm mnspmwmv meadow oma o» Hm.aonu macaw pnwfioz
owuom opflawnpnzchu name no mawm

owpmm opdpfinppz
HHH OH“ mu mu bu on On ¢u n u H

 

O.
(D

-25-

 

 

>H ounwuh

o.H

N.H

£99 19d peuxaa Spunod

. ¢.H

0.H

m.H

.Ampqwawponnm wpdpmmmv mcnzom omH_acnu unwkab.nnouw pnmwoz
odpmm m>apanasz can mama no opwm

23m 3 S «.35

Ha” OH" on m" b" m

I!)

#u n "

 

-26-

 

>.on:mwh

 

O.H

N.H

¢.H

w.H

m.H

o.m

Asp Jed pautas spunoa

.. 27 -
Discussion

When data for the entire feeding period, from weaning to
market weights were computed, practically no correlation between nutri-
tive ratio and rate of gain was found. An analysis of the factors
affecting these figures shouswhy it was necessary to sub-divide the
data into shorter feeding periods.

Under average feeding conditions, younger pigs consume a
narrower nutritive ratio than older pigs, because the younger pigs
require a larger preportion of protein for body develoment than the
older, fattening pigs. As market weight is approached, there is less
growth of body tissues and more fat is deposited. Therefore, as the
pigs grow older and become of a heavier weight, they will require a
maller preportion of protein. Pigs fed at self-feeders, free—choice
between grains and proteinerich supplanents, consume wider nutritive
ratios as they approach market weiglt.

While the young pig gains very rapidly on the basis of
percentage of his weight, his feed capacity grows with him so that
his daily rate of gain increases materially with age. Market-weight
pigs frequently gain tun pounds daily, while weanling pigs seldom
average one pound of gain daily.

When the entire feeding period, from weaning to market
weight, is considered, the natural change in nutritive requirement is
a constantly reduced preportion of protein and the normal rate of gain
shows a gradual increase. If we assune from feeding standards that high
rates of gain should correlate with a narrow nutritive ratio, these two
factors tend to reverse or off-set the normal relationship between

rate of gain and nutritive ratio when considered over any considerable

- 28 -
period.

When the data was divided according to time periods, the first
period showed a.much better correlation than later periods. It was
believed that this was due to the fact that some lots of pigs gained
more rapidly than others so that grouping according to comparable time
periods made each group include pigs with rather wide differences in
their weights. To overcome this, the data for the thme periods were
grouped together according to each lot's initial weight for the period.

It was necessary to make the weight group large enough to include the
weight gained by the more rapid-gaining lots. Narrower weight groups
would leave too many lets out of certain groups and reduce the accuracy
of the computations. If complete data were available for shorter
periods so that narrower weight groupings could be:made, it is believed
by the author that more perfect correlations would be fOund.

In order to visualize the results of the foregoing computations,
a summary of the /®/x y is presented by weight groups for each experi-
ment in Table 12.

'Ihe group with an initial weight from forty to forty-eight
pounds in each experiment had a correlation coefficient which was very
significant, meaning that there was a very close relationship between the
nutritive ratio and the rate of gain. It is a negative correlation
because the rate of gain decreases as the nutritive ratio widens or becomes
larger.

The correlation coefficient for the second group with an
initial weight ranging from.forty-nine to eighty pounds was very signifi-
cant in three experiments, was less significant in the Iowa experiment,
and was not significant in the Michigan experiment with buttermilk in the

winter of 1955-36.

Table 12 - Summary of Correlation Coefficients

-29..

 

 

 

Michigan Pasture Experiments:

Group I (40-48 lbs.)
Group II (49-80 lbs.)
Group III (Bl-120 lbs.)
Group IV (121-180 lbs.)

Iowa Experiment:

Group I

Group II

Group III

Group IV (121-240 lbs.)

guttermilk 1936-37:

Group II
Group III
Group IV

§kimmilk 1933-34:

Group II
Group III
Group IV

ttermilk 1935-36:
Group II
Group III
Group IV

Combined Milk Experiments:
Group II

Group III
Group IV

 

 

 

Number of Pig- Correlation
Feedin Periods Coefficient
96 -0 72
510 -e 75
540 -0 66
581 -. 34
50 “e 54
65 -0 36
70 -.02*
'70 +.10*
126 -. 71
63 -0 39
36 4-. 48’”
54 “e 70
81 -e 28
27 -0 57
56 -019*
91 -e 59
236 "e 42
225 -.16*
132 -017*

 

*Not significant.
”Significant, but reversed.

 

- so -

The correlation coefficient for the third group of pigs with
an initial weight from eighty-one to one hundred twenty pounds showed
less relationship between the nutritive ratio and the rate of gains
than the preceding weight group.

The correlation coefficients were significant for four of
the five experiments, but were not for the combined data of the three
Michigan milk experiments and the data from the Iowa experiment.

The correlation coefficient computed for the fourth group,
with initial weights upward from one hundred twenty pounds, showed
less correlation. It was significant in two experiments, not signifi-
cant in two, and a significant positive correlation in one experiment.

The two groups of pigs with initial weights ranging from forty
to forty-eight pounds and from forty-nine to eighty pounds showed a
higher correlation between the nutritive ratio and the rate of gain
than the heavier—weight pigs. This should be expected because the
protein supply is more likely to be a limiting factor with young
pigs than with older, heavier pigs.

The four weight groups of pasture-fed pigs all showed a highly
significant correlation coefficient between rate of gain and nutritive
ratio. The highest coefficients were for the two lighter-weight groups,
-.72 and -.'75 respectively, slightly lower for the third group, «66,
and only about half as high for the heaviest-weight group, or -..'54. This
lowering of the coefficient may be accounted for either by the lowered
need for protein, making other factors such as disease or individuality
of relatively more importance than the nutritive ratio, or by the wider
weight differences of this group extending over a range of 60 pounds from
120 to 180 pomds. The pigs are reported to have been especially thrifty

througlout these pasture experiments.

- 31 -

The first weight group of the Iowa experiment had a signifi-
cant correlation coefficient of -.54 and the second weight group had
a significant correlation of -.36. The correlation coefficient decreased
rather rapidly for the third group. It was only -.02 which was not
significant. The correlation coefficient for the last group was positive,
but not significant. The lack of a significant correlation coefficient
for the last two groups can probably be explained by the fact that there
was an abnormal decrease in the rate of gains as the pigs became heavier
in seven of the ten lots. Also, the last group included lots of pigs with
a wider variation in average weight, ranging from one hundred twenty to
two hundred forty pounds. These pigs were on a prolonged dry-lot feeding
experiment. Their ration did not include a satisfactory vitamin supple-
ment. It appears that after having been in the experiment several periods,
other factors became more important in affecting the rate of gain than the
nutritive ratio. A

The buttermilk and skimmilk experiments gave highly significant
correlation coefficients in two cases out of three for the lighten-weight
groups and for the corresponding group when the data from the three
experiments were combined. The correlation coefficient for the eighty-
one to one-hundred-twenty-pound group, while significant for each
experiment, was not so when the data were combined from the three
experiments. For the heaviest group, the coefficients were badly
scattered showing a significant negative correlation as expected in
one experiment, not significant in one experiment, and a reversal for
the other experiment in that it had a high enough positive correlation
to be considered significant.

Part of the failure of these experiments to show the expected

correlation may be explained by unthrifty pigs. The pigs were winter-fed

- 32 -
and several became unthrifty. Several pigs were substituted. It appears
that after several weeks in the dryalot, the pigs were affected by other
factors that influenced their rate of gain and interferred with the
normal correlation between rate of gain and nutritive ratio.

This study would have'been.more comprehensive and accurate
if each experiment used herein would have been especially designed for
this study. Such experiments should be set up with each lot of pigs
fed the same kind of feeds in varying preportions through the various
feeding periods at different definite nutritive ratios.

There would probably be a higher correlation coefficient
if the data had been available in shorter feeding periods so that it
could have'been logically divided into narrower weight groups. With
fourteen-day periods, instead of twenty-eight, the number of samples
would have‘been the same with twice as many weight groups. IHowever,
to do this with the data used in this paper'would reduce the number
of samples in each group below the number needed for accurate computa-

tions.

.. :33 -
Conclusions

The study shows there was a definite relationship between the
nutritive ratio of a ration and the rate of gains made by the lighter-
weight pigs of this study. As the pigs are fed a narrower nutritive
ratio, they tend to make more rapid gains. As the ratio widens, the
gains are slower. Wi th the exception of the pasture-fed pigs, the
heavier-weight pigs of this study seemed to be affected by other factors
influencing the rate of gain fully as much as the nutritive ratio.

Because of the influence of increased rate 'of daily gain
as the pigs grow toward market weight, the relationship of nutritive
ratio to rate of gain must be studied over relatively short periods
to show its influence clearly.

The pasture-fed pigs gave more unifomly significant
correlation coefficients between nutritive ratio and rate of gain than
the dry-lot-fed pigs studied, even though no estimate of the nutrient
intake from pasture was included in figuring the nutritive ratio.

This may have been due {to more uniform thriftiness and normal develOp-

ment among the pasture—fed pigs.

 

, a». Jab... .V. «w...

 

TV

“'ininu‘wgwmymunmijw

1