Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:46:25.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The prediction of the voluntary food intake of pigs on poor quality foods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

L. N. Tsaras ,
I. Kyriazakis  and
G. C. Emmans
L. N. Tsaras
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG Department of Animal Husbandry, Vacuity of Veterinary Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54006 Thessaloniki, Greece
I. Kyriazakis
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
G. C. Emmans
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was carried out to investigate the proposal that the voluntary food intake of pigs, when given foods based on bulky materials, can be accurately predicted from the water-holding capacity (WHC, g water per g dry food) values of the foods. A basal food (B), with 12·9 MJ digestible energy and 249 g crude protein per kg dry matter, was diluted to two extents by either sugar-beet pulp (S), grass meal (G) or soya hulls (H). The contents of the bulky materials in the total diets were either 320 g/kg (foods BS, BG and BH) or 800 g/kg (foods S, G and H). Each of these six foods was given ad libitum to six pigs in period I, which lasted for 21 days, with a further four given B. In period II, which lasted for 14 days and followed period I immediately, the pigs were also given their food ad libitum. Only the 36 pigs from the six ‘bulky“treatments (i.e. on treatments other than B) continued in a change-over design. Two pigs from each of the six ‘bulky’ treatments were allocated to the three foods of the same level of dilution (e.g. the six pigs from BS were changed to BS, BG and BH). Of the ‘bulk’ characteristics measured (crude fibre, acid-detergent fibre, neutral-detergent fibre, apparent digestibility of the organic matter, density and WHC) only WHC accounted sufficiently for the effects of the foods on the voluntary food intake of the pigs. The two methods of centrifugation and filtration that were used for the WHC determination were very highly correlated (r = 0·978), with food B having the lowest value, 3·86 g water per g dry food, and food S having the highest value, 8·48 g water per g dry food, when measured by centrifugation. In both periods the rate of intake was calculated as g/kg live weight per day, scaled intake (SFI). Live-weight gain and food conversion efficiency both decreased significantly (P < 0·001) as B was diluted with S, G and H. For the six ‘bulky’ feeding treatments SFI in the last 14 days of period I was proportional to the reciprocal of the WHC of the foods: SFI (g/kg per day) = 235 (s.e. 6·3). No effects of previous feeding treatment on site were observed in period II as a whole; however, intake initially increased when the food had lower WHC than the one previously offered and decreased when it had higher WHC. It was concluded that: (a) the WHC of a food is a sufficient descriptor of its ‘bulk’ and that it accounts for the effects on the voluntary food intake of pigs; (b) the detailed methods used for measuring WHC need to be standardized; (c) pigs can adapt more rapidly to bulky foods when they have had prior experience of such foods; (d) the length of time needed to observe an intake, which will be characteristic of the bulky food on offer, depends on the prior experience of the pig.

Keywords

digestibilityfibrefood intakepigswater holding capacity
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 66 , Issue 3 , June 1998 , pp. 713 - 723
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1998

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

Agricultural Research Council. 1981. The nutrient requirements of pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Black, J. L. 1995. The evolution of animal growth models. In Modelling growth in the pig (ed. Moughan, P. J., Verstegen, M. W. A. and Visser-Reyneveld, M. I.), European Association of Animal Production publication no. 78, pp. 3–9. Wageningen Pers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Black, J. L., Campbell, R. G., Williams, I. H., James, K. J. and Davies, G. T. 1986. Simulation of energy and amino acid utilisation in the pig. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 121–145.Google Scholar
Brouns, F., Edwards, S. A. and English, P. R. 1992. Effects of unmolassed sugar-beet pulp on regulation of voluntary food intake in pigs. Animal Production 54: 487 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Chadd, S. A. 1990. Voluntary food intake of hybrid pigs. Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, D. J. A. and Chadd, S. A. 1989. Voluntary food intake of growing pigs. In Voluntary food intake of pigs (ed. Forbes, J. M., Varley, M. A. and Lawrence, T. L. J.), occasional publication, British Society of Animal Production, no. 13, pp. 61–70.Google Scholar
Cole, D. J. A., Hardy, B. and Lewis, D. 1972. Nutrient density of pigs diets. In Pig production (ed. Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 243–257. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Eastwood, M. A. 1973. Vegetable fibre: its physical properties. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 32: 137–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eastwood, M. A., Brydon, W. G. and Tadesse, K. 1980. Effect of fibre on colon function. In Medical aspects of dietary fibre (ed. Spiller, G. and Kay, R. M.), pp. 1–26. Plenum Medical Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1995. Energy systems and prediction of energy and food intakes. In Modelling growth in the pig (ed. Moughan, P. J., Verstegen, M. W. A. and VisserReyneveld, M. I.), European Association of Animal Production publication no. 78, pp. 115–122. Wageningen Pers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Englyst, H. N. and Hudson, G. J. 1987. Calorimetric method for routine measurement of dietary fibre as non-starch polysaccharides. A comparison with gas liquid chromatography. Food Chemistry 24: 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, N. S., Gous, R. M. and Emmans, G. C. 1994. Preferred components for the construction of a new simulation model of growth, food intake and nutrient requirements of growing pigs. South African Journal of Animal Science 24: 10–17.Google Scholar
Frank, G. R., Aherne, F. X. and Jensen, A. H. 1983. A study of the relationship between performance and dietary component digestibilities by swine fed different levels of dietary fiber. Journal of Animal Science 57: 645–654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analysis. Agricultural handbook no. 379. Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Kennelly, J. J. and Aherne, F. X. 1980a. The effect of fiber addition to diets formulated to contain different levels of energy and protein on growth and carcass quality of swine. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60: 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennelly, J. J. and Aheme, F. X. 1980b. The effect of fiber in diets formulated to contain different levels of energy and protein on digestibility coefficients in swine. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60: 717–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1990. The immediate effects of abrupt diet composition changes in young pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 64: 619–623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1995. The voluntary food intake of pigs given feeds based on wheat bran, dried citrus pulp and grass meal, in relation to measurements of food bulk. British Journal of Nutrition 73: 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1997. Voluntary food intake and diet selection. In A quantitative biology of the pig (ed. Kyriazakis, I.) CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1987. Genstat V, mark 1.3. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. B., Terlouw, E. M. C. and Kyriazakis, I. 1993. The behavioural effects of undernutrition in confined farm animals. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 52: 219–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longland, A. G. and Low, A. G. 1995. Prediction of the energy value of alternative feeds for pigs. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Garnsworth, P. C. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 187–209. Nottingham University Press.Google Scholar
Low, A. G. 1985. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 87–112. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moughan, P. J., Annison, P. J., Rutherford, G. and Wiseman, J. 1998. The chemical and physical description of feedstuffs. In A quantitative biology of the pig (ed. Kyriazakis, I.). CAB International, Wallingford. In press.Google Scholar
Owen, J. B. and Ridgman, W. J. 1968. Further studies of the effect of dietary energy content on the voluntary intake of pigs. Animal Production 10: 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, A. D. and Baumgardt, B. R. 1971. Food and energy intake of rats fed diets varying in energy concentration and density. Journal of Nutrition 101: 1057–1068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roan, S.-W. 1991. Bio-economic models for the simulation of the production and management of the growing pig and sows. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. A. and Eastwood, M. A. 1981. An examination of factors which may affect the water holding capacity of dietary fibre. British Journal of Nutrition 45: 83–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, J. B. and Van Soest, P. J. 1977. Dietary estimation in concentrate animal feedstuffs. Sixty-ninth meeting of the American Society of Animal Science. Journal of Animal Science 54: (suppl. 1) 254–255.Google Scholar
Smits, C. H. M. and Annison, G. 1996. Non-starch plant polysaccharides in broiler nutrition — towards a physiologically valid approach to their determination. World's Poultry Science Journal 52: 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanogias, G. and Pearce, G. R. 1985. The digestion of fibre by pigs. 3. Effects of the amount and type of fibre on physical characteristics of segments of the gastrointestinal tract. British Journal of Nutrition 53: 537–548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, St C. S. 1980. Genetic size scaling rules in animal growth. Animal Production 30: 161–165.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. 1983. Development of recommended energy and protein allowances for growing pigs. Agricultural Systems 11: 159–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar