Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:58:49.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of ad libitum and restricted feeding on early production performance and body composition of Yorkshire pigs selected for reduced residual feed intake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2011

N. Boddicker ,
N. K. Gabler ,
M. E. Spurlock ,
D. Nettleton  and
J. C. M. Dekkers
N. Boddicker
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
N. K. Gabler
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
M. E. Spurlock
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
D. Nettleton
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
J. C. M. Dekkers*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Residual feed intake (RFI), defined as the difference between observed and expected feed intake based on growth and backfat, has been used to investigate genetic variation in feed efficiency in cattle, poultry and pigs. However, little is known about the biological basis of differences in RFI in pigs. To this end, the objective of this study was to evaluate the fifth generation of a line of pigs selected for reduced RFI against a randomly selected Control line for performance, carcass and chemical carcass composition and overall efficiency. Here, emphasis was on the early grower phase. A total of 100 barrows, 50 from each line, were paired by age and weight (22.6 ± 3.9 kg) and randomly assigned to one of four feeding treatments in 11 replicates: ad libitum (Ad), 75% of Ad (Ad75), 55% of Ad (Ad55) and weight stasis (WS), which involved weekly adjustments in intake to keep body weight (BW) constant for each pig. Pigs were individually penned (group housing was used for selection) and were on treatment for 6 weeks. Initial BW did not significantly differ between the lines (P > 0.17). Under Ad feeding, the low RFI pigs consumed 8% less feed compared with Control line pigs (P < 0.06), had less carcass fat (P < 0.05), but with no significant difference in growth rate (P > 0.85). Under restricted feeding, low RFI pigs under the Ad75 treatment had a greater rate of gain while consuming the same amount of feed as Control pigs. Despite the greater gain, no significant line differences in carcass composition or carcass traits were observed. For the WS treatment, low RFI pigs had similar BW (P > 0.37) with no significant difference in feed consumption (P > 0.32). Overall, selection for reduced RFI has decreased feed intake, with limited differences in growth rate but reduced carcass fat, as seen under Ad feeding. Collectively, results indicate that the effects of selection for low RFI are evident during the early grower stage, which allows for greater savings to the producer.

Keywords

swineresidual feed intakefeed efficiencygrowthcarcass composition
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 9 , 05 August 2011 , pp. 1344 - 1353
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1980. Official methods of analysis, 13th edition. AOAC, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Barea, R, Dubois, S, Gilbert, H, Sellier, P, van Milgen, J, Noblet, J 2010. Energy utilization in pigs selected for high and low residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 88, 2062–2072.Google Scholar
Boddicker, N, Gabler, NK, Spurlock, ME, Nettleton, D, Dekkers, JCM 2011. Effects of ad libitum and restricted feed intake on growth performance and body composition of Yorkshire pigs selected for reduced residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 89, 40–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooks, CC, Fontenot, JP, Vipperman, PE Jr, Thomas, HR, Graham, PP 1964. Chemical composition of the young pig carcass. Journal of Animal Science 23, 1022–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunter, KL, Cai, W, Johnston, DJ, Dekkers, JCM 2010. Selection to reduce residual feed intake in pigs produces a correlated response in juvenile insulin-like growth factor-I concentration. Journal of Animal Science 88, 1973–1981.Google Scholar
Cai, W, Casey, DS, Dekkers, JC 2008. Selection response and genetic parameters for residual feed intake in Yorkshire swine. Journal of Animal Science 86, 287–298.Google Scholar
Cai, W, Wu, H, Dekkers, JCM 2010. Longitudinal analysis of body weight and feed intake in selection lines for residual feed intake in pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 24, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Haer, LCM, de Vries, AG 1993. Feed intake patterns of and feed digestibility in growing pigs housed individually or in groups. Livestock Production Science 33, 277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, H, Bidanel, JP, Gruand, J, Caritez, JC, Billon, Y, Guillouet, P, Lagant, H, Noblet, J, Sellier, P 2007. Genetic parameters for residual feed intake in growing pigs, with emphasis on genetic relationships with carcass and meat quality traits. Journal of Animal Science 85, 3182–3188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herd, RM, Bishop, SC 2000. Genetic variation in residual feed intake and its association with other production traits in British Hereford cattle. Livestock Production Science 63, 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herd, RM, Arthur, PF 2008. Physiological basis for residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 87, E64–E71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoque, MA, Kadowaki, H, Shibata, T, Oikawa, T, Suzuki, K 2009. Genetic parameters for measures of residual feed intake and growth traits in seven generations of Duroc pigs. Livestock Science 121, 45–49.Google Scholar
Johnson, ZB, Chewning, JJ, Nugent, RA 3rd 1999. Genetic parameters for production traits and measures of residual feed intake in large white swine. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1679–1685.Google Scholar
Kennedy, BW, van der Werf, JH, Meuwissen, TH 1993. Genetic and statistical properties of residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 71, 3239–3250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koch, RM, Swiger, LA, Chambers, D, Gregory, KE 1963. Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 22, 486–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luiting, P 1990. Genetic variation of energy partitioning in laying hens: causes of variation in residual feed consumption. World's Poultry Science Journal 46, 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, JM, Ramsey, JJ, Miner, JL, Nielsen, MK 2009. Differences in mitochondrial efficiency between lines of mice divergently selected for heat loss. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3105–3113.Google Scholar
Moeller, SJ, Christian, LL 1998. Evaluation of the accuracy of real-time ultrasonic measurements of backfat and loin muscle area in swine using multiple statistical analysis procedures. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2503–2514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nguyen, NH, McPhee, CP, Wade, CM 2005. Responses in residual feed intake in lines of Large White pigs selected for growth rate on restricted feeding (measured on ad libitum individual feeding). Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 122, 264–270.Google Scholar
Noblet, J, Karege, C, Dubois, S, van Milgen, J 1999. Metabolic utilization of energy and maintenance requirements in growing pigs: effects of sex and genotype. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1208–1216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Research Council (NRC) 1998. Nutrient requirements of swine, 10th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Oresanya, TF, Beaulieu, AD, Patience, JF 2008. Investigations of energy metabolism in weanling barrows: the interaction of dietary energy concentration and daily feed (energy) intake. Journal of Animal Science 86, 348–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, EC, Herd, RM 2004. Biological basis for variation in residual feed intake in beef cattle. 2. Synthesis of results following divergent selection. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, EC, Herd, RM, Oddy, VH, Thompson, JM, Archer, JA, Arthur, PF 2001. Body composition and implications for heat production of Angus steer progeny of parents selected for and against residual feed intake. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40, 1065–1072.Google Scholar
SAS Institute 2007. SAS online documentation, version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar