154 The effects of feeding narasin or virginiamycin on growth and harvest performance of pigs during the grow-finish period

Arentson, Roger; Chewning, J. J.

doi:10.2527/msasas2016-154

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, these studies fed narasin for shorter durations than in the current study and reported improvements of 3.5 to 4.7%, which suggests that the improvement in growth rate may be dependent on feeding duration. In the present study, there were no differences in feed intake between controls and narasin-fed pigs, results which agree with previous research ( Arentson et al, 2013 ; Arentson and Chewning 2015 ; Arkfeld et al, 2015 ). In contrast, studies performed by Arentson et al (2016) and Knauer and Arentson (2017) reported greater feed intake for narasin-fed pigs compared to controls, but these studies again fed narasin for shorter durations than in the current study.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 94%

“…For example, Arentson et al (2014) , in a 4-study meta-analysis, reported 1.05 kg greater carcass weight for narasin-fed pigs compared to controls. Similar results have been observed in other studies ( Arentson and Chewning, 2015 ; Knauer et al, 2015 ). Although limited, previous research has shown increased carcass yield in narasin-fed pigs compared to controls ( Knauer et al, 2015 ; Arentson and Chewning, 2016 ), results similar to the current study.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Similar results have been observed in other studies ( Arentson and Chewning, 2015 ; Knauer et al, 2015 ). Although limited, previous research has shown increased carcass yield in narasin-fed pigs compared to controls ( Knauer et al, 2015 ; Arentson and Chewning, 2016 ), results similar to the current study. In contrast, Arkfeld et al (2015) reported no difference between controls and pigs fed narasin for carcass weight or yield.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

“…In the current study, feeding narasin or zinc bacitracin did not improve feed efficiency compared to controls, which is in contrast to most previous research. Many studies ( Arentson et al, 2013 ; Arentson and Chewning 2015 ; Knauer and Arentson, 2017 ) have reported greater G:F in narasin-fed pigs compared to controls, with ranges from 1.2% ( Arkfeld et al, 2015 ) to 2.5% ( Arentson and Chewning, 2016 ). There is no clear explanation as to why the results of the present study conflict with previous research.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mechanisms behind its mode of action when fed to swine have been previously discussed ( Wuethrich et al, 1998 ; Arkfeld et al, 2015 ). A number of studies have demonstrated improved growth rate in narasin-fed pigs compared to untreated controls, however, many studies were performed in small pens ( Arentson and Chewning, 2015 ; Knauer et al, 2015 ). In addition, little research has been performed evaluating the growth responses of feeding narasin to those from other common feed additives.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effect of narasin (Skycis) or zinc bacitracin (Albac) inclusion on the growth performance and carcass characteristics of finishing pigs sent for slaughter using a 3-phase marketing strategy

Rickard

Allee²,

Rincker

et al. 2017

Translational Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of dietary inclusion of narasin or zinc bacitracin on the growth performance and carcass characteristics of finishing pigs sent for slaughter using a 3-phase marketing strategy. The study used 2,219 crossbred pigs in a randomized complete block design (blocking factor = start date) with 3 dietary treatments: 1) Control (no feed additive), 2) 15 mg/kg narasin (Skycis, Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN), and 3) 28 mg/kg zinc bacitracin (Albac, Zoetis, Parsippany, NJ). Pigs were housed in single-sex pens of 25 pigs in a commercial wean-to-finish facility and there were 30 pen-replicates of each dietary treatment. All pigs were weighed as a group (i.e., pen) on d 0 (start of experimental feeding period), 77, 91, and 105 (end) of study. Pigs had ad libitum access to feed and water throughout the study period; all feed additions to the feeder were recorded. Pigs were sent for slaughter according to the following marketing strategy: 1) after 77 d on study, the heaviest 20% of each pen was sent for slaughter (Phase 1), 2) after 91 d on study, the next heaviest 48% of each pen were sent for slaughter (Phase 2), and 3) after 105 d on study, the remaining 32% of each pen was sent for slaughter (Phase 3). Pigs within each pen were selected for slaughter by visual appraisal of weight and shipped to a commercial slaughter facility where standard carcass measurements (HCW, LM depth, and backfat depth) were measured. Feeding narasin increased (P < 0.05) final live BW (1.3 kg) and overall ADG (1.1%) compared to the other treatments, which were similar (P > 0.05). Dietary treatment did not impact (P > 0.05) overall G:F. Feeding narasin increased (P < 0.05) HCW (1.4 kg) and carcass yield (0.3% units) compared to the other dietary treatments, which were similar (P > 0.05) for these traits. Overall, these results demonstrate that narasin-fed pigs had improved overall growth rate, HCW, and carcass yield compared to controls or pigs fed zinc bacitracin.

show abstract