Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:42:08.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tests of two theories of food intake using growing pigs 2. The effect of a period of reduced growth rate on the subsequent intake of foods of differing bulk content

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

E.C. Whittemore ,
G.C. Emmans ,
B.J. Tolkamp  and
I. Kyriazakis
E.C. Whittemore
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Health Department, Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
G.C. Emmans
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Health Department, Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
B.J. Tolkamp
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Health Department, Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
I. Kyriazakis
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Health Department, Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
Get access

Abstract

The effect of a period of feeding on a high bulk food, upon the subsequent intake of foods of differing bulk content, was investigated in two experiments of the same design. The intention was to provide a severe test of the two current conceptual frameworks available for the prediction and understanding of food intake. In each experiment 40 male Manor Meishan pigs were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups at weaning. Each experiment was split into two periods, P1 (12 to 18 kg) and P2 (18 to 32 kg). The treatments, all with ad libitum feeding, were: a control food (C) given throughout (treatment CC); a medium bulk food (M) given throughout (treatment MM); a high bulk food (H) given in P1 and then C in P2 (treatment HC); H given in P1 and M in P2 (treatment HM). C was based on micronized wheat with 13·4 MJ digestible energy and 243 g crude protein per kg fresh food. In experiment 1 M contained 350 g/kg and H 560 g/kg of unmolassed sugar-beet pulp and in experiment 2 M contained 500 g/kg and H 700 g/kg of unmolassed sugar-beet pulp. Framework 1 predicted that food intake on the medium bulk food (M) would not be increased, whereas framework 2 predicted that intake on M would be increased after a period of feeding on H, compared with when M was offered continuously.

In P1, both food intake (P < 0·01) and growth (P < 0·001) were severely limited on H compared with C. In experiment 1 growth was limited on M compared with C during the first 7 days of P1 (P < 0·01) only. In experiment 2 intake (P < 0·001) and growth (P < 0·001) on M were limited throughout P1, compared with C but not thereafter. Therefore, in neither experiment did M cause a lower growth rate than C from 18 to 32 kg. In experiment 1 there was full adaptation to M after about 10 days from 12 kg. In experiment 2 adaptation was complete by the end of the first 7 days from 18 kg.

In P2, food intake (P < 0·001) and live-weight gain (P < 0·05 and P < 0·001 in experiments 1 and 2, respectively) were increased on HC compared with CC. By the last 7 days of P2 intake was still higher (P < 0·01) but growth rate was no longer different to CC. Intake and gain were increased in P2 on HM compared with MM but, in general, these differences were small and not significant. In the first 7 days of P2, in experiment 1 pigs on HM had higher intakes (P < 0·001) and gains (P < 0·05) than those on MM, but in experiment 2 only intake was higher (P < 0·01) with no difference in gain. By the last 7 days of P2 there was no difference in either intake or gain between these two groups in either experiment. Pigs on HC increased intake by more than those on HM. There was, therefore, a significant interaction for food intake (P < 0·05, in experiment 1 and P < 0·001, in experiment 2) between prior and present food.

The unexpected failure of either M food to limit growth throughout the experimental period meant that the results of these experiments could not be used as a strong test to reject either one of the frameworks. However, the ability of the pigs to compensate on M was less than that on C. The data provide some evidence that under conditions of compensation foods such as M may be limiting. This is in closer agreement with the framework that predicted that consumption of a limiting food will not increase after a period of feeding on a high bulk food (framework 1).

Keywords

compensatory growthfibrefood intakepigs.
Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , April 2001 , pp. 361 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

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

Adolph, E. F. 1947. Urges to eat and drink in rats. American Journal of Physiology 151: 110.Google Scholar
Black, J. L. 1984. Integration of data for predicting feed intake, nutrient requirements and animal performance. In Heribvore nutrition in sub tropics and tropics (ed. Gilchrist, F. M. C. and Mackie, R. I.), pp. 648–671. Donker, Johannesburg.Google Scholar
Brouns, F., Edwards, S. A. and English, P. R. 1995. Influence of fibrous feed ingredients on voluntary intake of dry sows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 54: 301–313.Google Scholar
Cole, D. J. A., Duckworth, J. E., Holmes, W. and Cuthbertson, A. 1968. Factors affecting voluntary feed intake in pigs. 3. The effect of a period of feed restriction, nutrient density of the diet and sex on intake, performance and carcass characteristics. Animal Production 10: 345–357.Google Scholar
Conrad, H. R., Pratt, A. D. and Hibbs, J. W. 1964. Regulation of feed intake in dairy cows. I. Change in the importance of physical and physiological factors with increasing digestibility. Journal of Dairy Science 47: 54–62.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1981. A model of the growth and feed intake of ad libitum fed animals, particularly poultry. In Computers in animal production (ed. Hillyer, G. M., Whittemore, C. T. and Gunn, R. G.), British Society of Animal Production occasional publication no. 5, pp. 103–110.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. and Kyriazakis, I. 1995. The idea of optimisation in animals: uses and dangers. Livestock Production Science 44: 189–197.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. 1995. Voluntary food intake and diet selection in animals. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agricultural handbook no. 379. Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Grovum, W. L. 1987. A new look at what is controlling food intake. Proceedings of a symposium on feed intake by beef cattle, 20-22 November 1986, pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
Ketelaars, J. J. M. H. and Tolkamp, B. J. 1992. Toward a new theory of feed intake regulation in ruminants. 1. Causes of differences in voluntary feed intake: critique of current views. Livestock Production Science 30: 269–296.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1995. The voluntary feed intake of pigs given feeds based on wheatbran, dried citrus pulp and grass meal in relation to measurements of feed bulk. British Journal of Nutrition 73: 191–207.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1999. Voluntary feed intake and diet selection. In A quantitative biology of the pig (ed. Kyriazakis, I.), pp. 229–248. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Stamataris, C., Emmans, G. C. and Whittemore, C. T. 1991. The effects of food protein content on the performance of pigs previously given foods with low or moderate protein contents. Animal Production. 52: 165–173.Google Scholar
Low, A. G. 1985. Role of dietary fibre in pigs diets. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 87–112. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Mersmann, H. J., MacNeil, M. D., Seideman, S. C. and Pond, W. G. 1987. Compensatory growth in finishing pigs after feed restriction. Journal of Animal Science 64: 752–764.Google Scholar
Mertens, D. R. 1994. Regulation of forage intake. In Forage quality, evaluation, and utilization (ed. Fahey, G. C.), pp. 450–493. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., USA.Google Scholar
Minitab. 1992. Minitab for windows, release 11·1. Minitab Inc., USA.Google Scholar
Owen, J. B., Ridgeman, W. J. and Wyllie, D. 1971. The effect of food restriction on the subsequent voluntary intake of pigs. Animal Production 13: 537–546.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. A. and Van Soest, P. J. 1977. Dietary estimation in concentrate animal feedstuffs. Journal of Animal Science 54: (suppl. 1) 254–255.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. W. 1964. The plane of nutrition and compensatory growth in pigs. Animal Production 6: 227–236.Google Scholar
Stamataris, C., Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1991. The performance and body composition of young pigs following a period of growth retardation by food restriction. Animal Production 53: 373–381.Google Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J. 1999. Limitations in the use of constraints for intake predictions. In Regulation of feed intake (ed. Heide,, D. van der Huisman, E. A., Kanis, E., Osse, J. W. M. and Verstegen, M. W. A.), pp. 151–166. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J. and Ketelaars, J. J. M. H. 1992. Toward a new theory of feed intake regulation in ruminants. 2. Cost and benefits of food consumption: and optimisation approach. Livestock Production Science 30: 297–317.Google Scholar
Tsaras, L. N., Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1998. The prediction of voluntary food intake of pigs on poor quality foods. Animal Science 66: 713–723.Google Scholar
Vestergaard, E. -M. and Danielsen, V. 1998. Dietary fibre for sows: effects of large amounts of soluble and insoluble fibres in the pregnancy period on the performance of sows during three reproductive cycles. Animal Science 67: 355–362.Google Scholar
Weston, R. H. 1982. Animal factors affecting feed intake. In Nutritional limits to animal production from pastures (ed. Hacker, J. B.), pp. 183–197. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, UK.Google Scholar
Weston, R. H. 1988. Factors limiting intake of feed by sheep. XII. Digesta load and chewing activities in relation to lactation and its attendant increase in voluntary roughage consumption. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 39: 671–677.Google Scholar
Whittaker, X., Edwards, S. A., Spoolder, H. A. M., Corning, S. and Lawrence, A. B. 2000. The performance of group-housed sows offered a high fibre diet ad libitum . Animal Science 70: 85–93.Google Scholar
Whittemore, E. C., Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. and Tolkamp, B. J. 2001. Tests of two theories of food intake using growing pigs. 1. The effect of ambient temperature on the intake of foods of differing bulk content. Animal Science 72: 351–360.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. N. and Osbourn, D. F. 1960. Compensatory growth after undernutrition in mammals and birds. Biological Reviews 35: 324–361.Google Scholar