Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T18:52:24.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of hexoestrol implantation on growth, efficiency of food utilization and carcass quality in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. T. Morgan ,
F. R. Green ,
R. A. Costain  and
E. F. Williams
J. T. Morgan
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Nottingham University
F. R. Green
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Nottingham University
R. A. Costain
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Nottingham University
E. F. Williams
Affiliation:
J. Sainsbury Ltd, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An experiment is described in which 64 individually-fed pigs were used to investigate the effects of dietary protein status, administration of aureomycin and hexoestrol implantation on growth, efficiency of feed utilization and carcass conformation. The results of hexoestrol implantation and interactions with the other two variables only are reported here. The pigs were implanted at 120 lb. and again at 150 lb. and killed at 200 lb. live-weight.

The main features of hexoestrol treatment were:

1. Body length taken from the anterior edge of the aitch bone to the junction of first rib and sternum was significantly increased by 9·75 mm.

2. The percentage lean in the carcass was increased by 0·82%, representing approximately 1¼ lb. more lean meat in a 155 lb. carcass. The water content of the lean was increased but not significantly.

3. Body fat was reduced but this was not reflected in a significant change in back fat measurements.

4. No changes could be detected in the thyroid or adrenals, but whereas male castrates showed little effect of treatment on other organs apart from a certain amount of urethritis, the intact female manifested major changes in the genital tract. The uterus in particular was greatly enlarged and ovarian activity obviously reduced. The implications of these effects are being examined.

5. There was no response to treatment in terms of growth rate or efficiency of feed utilization.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , December 1958 , pp. 370 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Averill, R. L. W. (1955). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anitn. Prod. p. 18.Google Scholar
Barber, B. S., Braude, R. & Mitchell, R. G. (1953). Chem. & Ind. Rev. p. 410.Google Scholar
Beeson, W. M., Andrews, F. N., Perry, T. W. & Stob, M. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bindloss, A. A. (1958). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 39.Google Scholar
Bratzler, L. J., Soule, R. P. Jnr, Reinke, P. & Paul, P. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R. (1947). Brit. J. Nutr. 1, iii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R. (1948). Nature, Lond., 161, 856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R. (1950). Brit. J. Nutr. 4, 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Campbell, R. C., Lucas, I. A. M., Luscombe, J. R., Robinson, K. L. & Taylor, J. H. (1955). Brit. J. Nutr. 9, 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, T. D. (1956). Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Nottingham.Google Scholar
Dinusson, W. E., Klosterman, E. W. & Buchanan, M. L. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, I. & Preston, T. R. (1957). Brit. J. Nutr. 11, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstra, S. D. (1953). Anim. Breed. Abstr. 21, 302.Google Scholar
Letard, E., Szumowski, P. & Theret, M. (1952). Anim. Breed Abstr. (1954), 22, 628.Google Scholar
Lucas, I. A. M. & Calder, A. F. C. (1955). Brit. J. Nutr. 9, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1940). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 286. Textfig. 2.Google Scholar
Noland, P. R. & Burris, M. J. (1956). J. Anim. Sci. 15, 1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, H. M., Wallace, H. D., Coombs, G. E., Stroud, J. & Koger, M. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, T. W., Beeson, W. M. & Andrews, F. N. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, T. W., Beeson, W. M., Mower, M., Andrews, F. N. & Stob, M. (1956). J. Anim. Sci. 15, 1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sewell, R. F., Warren, E. P. & O'Mary, C. C. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sleeth, R. B., Pearson, A. M. & Wallace, H. D. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stob, M., Andrews, F. N., Zarrow, M. X. & Beeson, W. M. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szumowski, P. & Le Bars, H. (1952). Anim. Breed. Abstr. (1954), 22, Abs. 631.Google Scholar
Taylor, B., Catron, V., Ashton, G. C. & Burroughs, W. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. H. & Gordon, W. S. (1955). Vet. Rec. 67, 48.Google Scholar
Trautmann, A. & Moch, R. (1952). Anim. Breed. Abstr. 20, 755.Google Scholar
Woehling, H. C., Wilson, E. D., Grummer, R. H., Bray, R. W. & Casida, L. E. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar