Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T07:16:24.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diet selection in pigs: dietary choices made by growing pigs following a period of underfeeding with protein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

I. Kyriazakis  and
G. C. Emmans
I. Kyriazakis
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
G. C. Emmans
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Abstract

Forty pigs (half each of females and entire males) were used in an ad libitum feeding experiment from weaning to 33 kg live weight (LW). In period 1 to 16 kg LW, the pigs had either food L (134 g crude protein (CP) per kg) or food H (278 g CP per kg) alone. The aim was to delay the growth of pigs on L and create two groups of pigs with different body compositions. At 16 kg LW, eight pigs were killed and their empty bodies chemically analysed. The pigs given L had 1·06 (s.e. 0·08) kg more lipid and a lower protein: ash ratio in their empty body than pigs on H; growth rates, from 9 to 16 kg LW, were 386 (L) and 591 (H) (s.e.d. 17)g/day. Both aims were thus achieved.

In period 2 the pigs previously given L (no. = 16) or H (no. = 16) in period 1, were given L alone (no. = 4), H alone (no. = 4) or a choice between L and H (no. = 8) to 33 kg LW when the choice-fed pigs were killed and their empty bodies chemically analysed. The objective of the experiment was to test the idea that pigs previously given a food deficient in CP, when given a choice between foods, one of high and one of low, protein content will select a diet of a composition that allows them to correct the effects of the previous mis-feeding. The pigs given L alone in period 2 grew more slowly, and ate more per day, than those given H alone, with no effect of the food given in period 1. Of those given H alone in period 2, the pigs previously given L grew faster, and were more efficient, than those previously given H.

The protein contents (g CP per kg food) of the diets selected by the choice-fed pigs were significantly affected by both sex (228 for males v. 181 for females; s.e.d. 15) and the food given in period 1 (233 for L and 175 for H; s.e.d. 15) with no significant interaction between these factors. The pigs from L grew faster (1039 v. 780 (s.e.d. 70) g/day) had a higher daily food intake (1420 v. 1319 (s.e.d. 71) g/day) and were more efficient (0·736 v. 0·595 (s.e.d. 0·034) g gain per g food) than those from H. At 33 kg LW lipid weights were similar for the two period 1 treatments (L had 0·40 (s.e. 0·54) kg more lipid than H); females had 1·79 (s.e. 0·54) kg more lipid than males.

It is concluded that, where pigs are given a choice between foods of low and high protein contents, they will select a diet of a composition such that the effects of previous mis-feeding are corrected. Giving pigs a choice between an appropriate pair of foods allows them to select a diet of a composition suitable for their needs.

Keywords

body fatfood preferencesgrowthpigsprotein intake
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 337 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1991

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

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. 1981. The Nutrient Requirements of Pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Bradford, M. M. V. and Gous, R. M. 1991. The response of growing pigs to a choice of diets differing in protein content. Animal Production 52: 185–192.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. G. 1977. The response of early-weaned pigs to various protein levels in a high energy diet. Animal Production 24: 69–75.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. G. and Biden, R. S. 1978. The effect of protein nutrition between 5·5 and 20 kg live weight on the subsequent performance and carcass quality of pigs. Animal Production 27: 223–228.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. G., Taverner, M. R. and Curic, D. M. 1985. Effects of sex and energy intake between 48 and 90 kg live weight on protein deposition in growing pigs. Animal Production 40: 497–503.Google Scholar
Di Battista, D. 1987. Control of protein intake in golden hamsters. Physiology and Behavior 39: 1–10.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. and Fisher, C. 1986. Problems in nutritional theory. In Nutrient Requirements of Poultry and Nutrition Research, Chapter 2 (ed. Fisher, C. and Boorman, K. N.), Poultry Symposium No. 19. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Holt, L. E., Halac, E. and Kajdi, C. N. 1962. The concepts of protein stores and its implications in diet. Journal of the American Medical Association 181: 699–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyriazakis, I. 1989. Growth, feed intake and diet selection in pigs: theory and experiments. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. and Whittemore, C. T. 1988. The effect of a prior experience of foods on the diets selected by growing pigs. Animal Production 46: 523 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. and Whittemore, C. T. 1990. Diet selection in pigs: Choices made by growing pigs given foods of different protein contents. Animal Production 51: 189–199.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
Leshner, A. I. and Collier, G. 1973. The effects of gonadectomy on the sex differences in dietary self-selection patterns and carcass composition of rats. Physiology and Behavior 11: 671–676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leshner, A. I., Siegel, H. I. and Collier, G. 1972. Dietary self-selection by pregnant and lactating rats. Physiology and Behavior 8: 151–154.Google Scholar
Lynch, P. B., O'grady, J. F. and Spillane, T. A. 1971. Effect of level and source of lysine and protein level sequence on performance of growing-finishing pigs. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 10: 245–253.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1975–1984. Commercial Pig Evaluation Test Reports. Pig Improvement Services, Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley.Google Scholar
Piquard, F., Schaefer, A. and Haberey, P. 1978. Influence of fasting and protein deprivation on food selection in the rat. Physiology and Behavior 20: 771–778.Google Scholar
Richter, C. P., Holt, L. E. and Barelare, B. 1938. Nutritional requirements for normal growth and reproduction in rats studied by the self-selection method. American Journal of Physiology 122: 734–744.Google Scholar
Tullis, J. B. 1981. Protein growth in pigs. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Vaughan, O. W., Filer, L. J. and Churella, H. 1962. Influence of prior dietary protein levels on resistance to the stress of protein depletion. Pediatrics 29: 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. 1983. Development of recommended energy and protein allowances for growing pigs. Agricultural Systems 11: 159–186.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Tullis, J. B. and Emmans, G. C. 1988. Protein growth in pigs. Animal Production 46: 437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, P. N. and Osbourn, D. F. 1960. Compensatory growth after undernutrition in mammals and birds. Biological Reviews 35: 324–363.Google Scholar