Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:43:56.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determination of the optimum dietary lysine concentration for boars and gilts penned in pairs and in groups in the weight range 60 to 100 kg

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

M. K. O'Connell ,
P. B. Lynch  and
J. V. O'Doherty
M. K. O'Connell
Affiliation:
Pig Development Unit, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
P. B. Lynch
Affiliation:
Pig Development Unit, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
J. V. O'Doherty*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
*
†Email: john.vodoherty@ucd.ie
Get access

Abstract

Three trials were conducted to determine the optimum dietary lysine concentration for maximum growth rate (ADG) or minimum food conversion ratio (FCR) of boars and gilts from 60 to 90 kg (in pairs) and 80 to 100 kg (in pairs or groups). Ninety pairs of pigs and six treatments (dietary lysine concentrations) were used in experiment 1 (60 to 90 kg), 144 pairs and eight treatments in experiment 2 (80 to 100 kg) and groups of 13 pigs (no.=42 groups) and six treatments in experiment 3 (80 to 100 kg). Experiments were arranged as randomized-block designs, blocked on the basis of sex and start weight. Isoenergetic diets (13·8 MJ digestible energy per kg) were based on barley, wheat, soya-bean meal, with added vitamins, minerals and amino acids. Dietary lysine concentrations were: 7·9, 8·8, 9·7, 10·7, 11·7 and 12·5 g/kg in experiment 1; 7·0, 7·9, 8·8, 9·7, 10·7, 11·7, 12·5 and 13·5 g/kg in experiment 2; and 7·0, 7·9, 8·8, 9·7, 10·7 and 11·7 g/kg in experiment 3. In experiment 1 (60 to 90 kg pairs), ADG increased (quadratic, P<0·01) and FCR improved (quadratic, P<0·001) with increased lysine concentration. Although boars grew faster (P<0·001) and were more efficient (P<0·001) than gilts, maximum ADG was predicted at 10·8 g lysine per kg and minimum FCR at 10·9 g lysine per kg for all pigs. In experiment 2 (80 to 100 kg pairs), a treatment×sex interaction for ADG (P<0·01) and FCR (P<0·05) indicated that boars grew faster and had better FCR than gilts at dietary lysine concentrations above 10·7 and 9·7 g/kg respectively, with no difference between the sexes below these lysine levels. Maximum ADG was predicted at 11·8 and 9·9 g lysine per kg and minimum FCR was predicted at 11·9 and 10·0 g lysine per kg for boars and gilts, respectively. In experiment 3 (80 to 100 kg groups) ADG increased (quadratic, P<0·01) and FCR improved (quadratic, P<0·001) as dietary lysine concentration increased. Boars had higher ADG (P<0·001) and better FCR (P<0·001) than gilts. Maximum ADG and minimum FCR were predicted at 9·3 and 9·6 g lysine per kg for all pigs. In conclusion, boars grew faster and more efficiently than gilts, with interactions in experiment 2 indicating a greater difference in performance at higher dietary lysine concentrations.

Keywords

pigslysine
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 1 , February 2006 , pp. 65 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

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 1990. Official methods and analysis, first supplement (1990) to the 15th edition, method 990·03. AOAC Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Giles, L. R. and Dettmann, E. B. 1985. Amino acid and energy interactions in growing pigs. 1. Effects of food intake, sex and live weight on the responses of growing pigs to lysine concentration. Animal Production 40: 331–343.Google Scholar
Black, J. L., Giles, L. R., Wynn, P. C., Knowles, A. G., Kerr, C. A., Jones, M. R., Strom, A. D., Gallagher, N. L. and Eamens, G. J. 2001. A review – factors limiting the performance of growing pigs in commercial environments. In Manipulating pig production VIII (ed. Cranwell, P. D.), pp. 9–36. Australasian Pig Science Association.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D., Garth, G. B., Penman, J. C. and Fiskin, A. 2003. Sensitivity to dietary lysine: energy content in pigs divergently selected for components of efficient lean growth rate. Animal Science 76: 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, R. G., Taverner, M. R. and Curic, D. M. 1988. The effect of sex and live weight on the growing pig's response to dietary protein. Animal Production 46: 123–130.Google Scholar
Cline, T. R., Cromwell, G. L., Crenshaw, T. D., Ewan, R. C., Hamilton, C. R., Lewis, A. J., Mahan, D. C. and Southern, L. L. 2000. Further assessment of the dietary lysine requirement of finishing gilts. Journal of Animal Science 78: 987–992.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cromwell, G. L., Cline, T. R., Crenshaw, J. D., Crenshaw, T. D., Ewan, R. C., Hamilton, C. R., Lewis, A. J., Mahan, D. C., Miller, E. R., Pettigrew, J. E., Tribble, L. F. and Veum, T. L. 1993. The dietary protein and (or) lysine requirements of barrows and gilts. Journal of Animal Science 71: 1510–1519.Google Scholar
CSO Ireland. 2003. Meat supply balance / Livestock slaughterings (annual). Date viewed: 19/04/2004.http://eirestat.cso.ie/diska/ASAA407.htmlGoogle Scholar
Department of Agriculture and Food (Ireland) 1994. European communities (pig carcass grading) (amendment) Regulations SI 216. Irish Statue Book Database. S.I. no. 365/1988: pig carcase (grading) regulations, 1988. DAF(I), Dublin.Google Scholar
Ettle, T., Roth-Maier, D. A. and Roth, F. X. 2003. Effect of apparent ileal digestible lysine to energy ratio on performance of finishing pigs at different dietary metabolizable energy levels. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 87: 269–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Commission 1998. Directive 98/64/EC of 3 September 1998 establishing Community methods of analysis for the determination of amino acids, crude oils and fats, and olaquindox in feedingstuffs and amending Directive 71/393/EEC. EC, Brussels.Google Scholar
European Communities (Marketing of Feedingstuffs). 1984a. Regulation SI no. 200 of 1984, part 1 (moisture 2·1 and ash 6·1). Department of Agriculture and Food, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
European Communities (Marketing of Feedingstuffs). 1984. Regulation 1984, part 4 (oils and fats, 4·1 Determination of crude oils and fats, 5·2 method B). Department of Agriculture and Food, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
European Communities (Marketing of Feedingstuffs). 1993b. Regulation SI no. 261 of 1993 (crude fibre determination). Department of Agriculture and Food, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Fuller, M. F., Franklin, M. F., McWilliam, R. and Pennie, K. 1995. The responses of growing pigs, of different sex and genotype, to dietary energy and protein. Animal Science 60: 291–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyun, Y. and Ellis, M. 2001. Effect of group size and feeder type on growth performance and feeding patterns in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 79: 803–810.Google Scholar
Kerr, B. J., McKeith, F. K. and Easter, R. A. 1995. Effect on performance and carcass characteristics of nursery to finisher pigs fed reduced crude protein, amino acid supplemented diets. Journal of Animal Science 73: 433–440.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1992. The effects of varying protein and energy intakes on the growth and body composition of pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 68: 603–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, P. B., Allen, P. and Lawlor, P. 1998. Comparison of sire-lines for production of slaughter pigs. End of project reports –4129/4130. Teagasc, Ireland.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1998. Nutrient requirements of swine, 10th revised edition. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Rao, A. J. and McCracken, K. J. 1990a. Protein requirements of boars of high genetic potential for lean growth. Animal Production 51: 179–187.Google Scholar
Rao, A. J. and McCracken, K. J. 1990b. Effect of protein intake on energy and nitrogen balance and chemical composition of gain in growing boars of high genetic potential. Animal Production 51: 389–397.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 2001. Statistical analysis systems. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Szabo, C., Jansman, A. J. M., Babinsky, L., Kanis, E. and Verstegen, M. W. A. 2001. Effect of dietary protein source and lysine: DE ratio on growth performance, meat quality, and body composition of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 79: 2857–2865.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Urynek, W. and Buraczewska, L. 2003. Effect of dietary energy concentration and apparent ileal digestible lysine: metabolizable energy ratio on nitrogen balance and growth performance of young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 81: 1227–1236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Lunen, T. A. and Cole, D. J. A. 1996. The effect of lysine/digestible energy ratio on growth performance and nitrogen deposition of hybrid boars, gilts and castrated males. Animal Science 63: 465–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Hazzledine, M. J. and Close, W. H. 2003. Nutrient requirement standards for pigs. British Society of Animal Science, Penicuik.Google Scholar
Witte, D. P., Ellis, M., McKeith, F. K. and Wilson, E. R. 2000. Effect of dietary lysine level and environmental temperature during the finishing phase on the intramuscular fat content of pork. Journal of Animal Science 78: 1272–1276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yen, H. T., Cole, D. J. A. and Lewis, D. 1986. Amino acid requirements of growing pigs. 8. The response of pigs from 50 to 90 kg live weight to dietary ideal protein. Animal Production 43: 155–165.Google Scholar