Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T07:01:48.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sensitivity to dietary lysine: energy content in pigs divergently selected for components of efficient lean growth rate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

N.D. Cameron ,
G.B. Garth ,
J.C. Penman  and
A. Fiskin
N.D. Cameron
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
G.B. Garth
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
J.C. Penman
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
A. Fiskin
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
Get access

Abstract

The sensitivity to dietary lysine: energy content of pigs from lines divergently selected over seven generations for components of efficient lean growth rate was quantified by the within-selection line regression of performance test traits on diet class. Large White pigs were performance tested over three 14-day test-periods starting at 30, 50 and 75 kg and offered, to appetite, isoenergetic diets differing in dietary total lysine: energy (0•59, 0•69, 0•81, 0•91, 1•01, 1•12 and 1•23 g/MJ digestible energy (DE)). Within each litter, full-sibs were performance tested on different diets. Pigs were also performance tested on a diet-choice procedure using diets with total lysine: energy of 0•69 and 1•12 g/MJ DE to determine the correlation between performance on phase-feeding and diet-choice.

The study consisted of 578 animals with 459 pigs tested with phase-feeding and 119 tested on diet-choice procedures. The study detected significant selection line and dietary effects on performance test traits, but no significant between-selection line differences in sensitivity to dietary total lysine: energy. When combinations of performance test traits were transformed into predicted lysine and energy utilization traits there were significant selection line effects on predicted nutrient allocation, but not in responses to increasing dietary total lysine: energy. The lack of between-selection line differences in sensitivity to dietary total lysine: energy indicated that the consequences of changing dietary total lysine: energy will be broadly similar across a range of genotypes, as spanned by the selection lines of the study.

Genetic correlations between performance traits of phase-fed and diet-choice pigs suggested that predictions of genetic merit will be similar with animals tested on either procedure between 30 and 75 kg but post 75 kg predicted genetic merit for growth rate and lysine intake should be estimated separately for performance on diet-choice or for performance on a given diet. In contrast, predicted genetic merit for fat deposition with performance testing on diet-choice will be highly correlated with predicted genetic merit with testing on a single diet.

Keywords

lean growthlysinepigsselection.
Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
Animal Science , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 175 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2003

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, Farnam Royal.Google Scholar
Bereskin, B., Steele, N. C. and Mitchell, A. D. 1990. Selection line ✕ diet interactions for two lines of pigs fed 12 or 24% protein diets. Journal of Animal Science 68: 944–959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradford, M. M. V. and Gous, R. M. 1991. A comparison of phase feeding and choice feeding as methods of meeting the amino acid requirements of growing pigs. Animal Production 52: 323–330.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D. 1994. Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. 1. Selection pressure applied and direct responses in a Large White herd. Animal Production 59: 251–262.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D. and Curran, M. K. 1995a. Genotype with feeding regime interaction in pigs divergently selected for components of efficient lean growth rate. Animal Science 61: 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, N. D. and Curran, M. K. 1995b. Responses in carcass composition to divergent selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. Animal Science 61: 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, N. D., Curran, M. K. and Kerr, J. C. 1994. Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. 3. Responses to selection with a restricted feeding regime. Animal Production 59: 271–279.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D., Enser, M., Nute, G. R., Whittington, F. M., Penman, J. C., Fisken, A. C., Perry, A. M. and Wood, J. D. 2000. Genotype with nutrition interaction on fatty acid composition of intramuscular fat and the relationship with flavour of pig meat. Meat Science 55: 187–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cameron, N. D., Kerr, J. C., Garth, G. B., Fenty, R. and Peacock, A. 2002. Genetic and nutritional effects on lactational performance of gilts selected for components of efficient lean growth. Animal Science 74: 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, N. D., McCullough, E., Troup, K. and Penman, J. C. 2003. Serum urea concentration as a predictor of dietary lysine requirement in selected pig genotypes. Journal of Animal Science 81: 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, N. D. and MacLeod, M. G. 1997. Genotype with nutrition interaction for test traits in pigs selected for lean growth rate. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science 1997, p. 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, N. D., Penman, J. C., Fisken, A. C., Nute, G. R., Perry, A. M. and Wood, J. D. 1999. Genotype with nutrition interactions for carcass composition and meat quality in pig genotypes selected for components of efficient lean growth rate. Animal Science 69: 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Close, W. H. 1994. Feeding new genotypes: establishing amino acid/energy requirements. In Principles of pig science (ed. Cole, D.J.A., Wiseman, J. and Varley, M. A.), pp. 123–140. Nottingham University Press.Google Scholar
Dourmad, J. Y., Guillou, D., Sève, B. and Henry, Y. 1996. Response to dietary lysine supply during the finishing period in pigs. Livestock Production Science 45: 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, N. S., Nelson, L. and Gous, R. M. 1999. Diet selection in pigs: choices made by growing pigs when given foods differing in nutrient density. Animal Science 68: 691–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genstat 5•3 Committee. 1997. Genstat 5•3 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Juga, J. and Thompson, R. 1993. A derivative-free algorithm to estimate bivariate (co)variance components using canonical transformation and estimated rotations. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica 42: 191–197.Google Scholar
Kanis, E. 1990. Effect of food intake capacity on genotype by feeding regime interactions in growing pigs. Animal Production 50: 343–351.Google Scholar
Kennedy, B. W., Werf, J. H. J. van der and Meuwissen, T. H. E. 1993. Genetic and statistical properties of residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 71: 3239–3250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knap, P. 2000. Variation in maintenance requirements of growing pigs in relation to body composition. A simulation study. Ph. D. thesis, University of Wageningen.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 concentrations. Animal Production 51: 189–199.Google Scholar
Lange, C. F. M. de. 1995. Framework for a simplified model to demonstrate principles of nutrient partitioning for growth in the pig. In Modelling growth in the pig. European Association for Animal Production publication no. 78, pp. 71–85. Wageningen Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J. H., Kim, J. D., Kim, J. H., Jin, J. and Han, In. K. 2000. Effect of phase feeding on the growth performance, nutrient utilization and carcass characteristics in finishing pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 13: 1137–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mrode, R. A. 1996. Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values. CAB International, Oxford.Google Scholar
Mrode, R. A. and Kennedy, B. W. 1993. Genetic variation in measures of food efficiency in pigs and their genetic relationships with growth rate and backfat. Animal Production 56: 225–232.Google Scholar
Nam, D. S. and Aherne, F. X. 1995. A comparison of choice and phase feeding for growing-finishing pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 75: 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. 1998. Nutrient requirements of swine, 10th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Noblet, J., Karege, C., Dubois, S. and Milgen, J. van. 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
Novus. 1996. Raw material compendium: a compilation of worldwidedatasources,secondedition. NovusInternational Incorporated, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Rao, D. S. and McCracken, K. J. 1990. Protein requirements of boars of high genetic potential for lean growth. Animal Production 51: 179–187.Google Scholar
Rao, D. S. and McCracken, K. J. 1992. Energy: protein interactions in growing boars of high genetic potential for lean growth. 1. Effects on growth, carcass characteristics and organ weights. Animal Productio n 54: 75–82.Google Scholar
Thompson, R., Crump, R. E., Juga, J. and Visscher, P. M. 1995. Estimating variances and covariances for bivariate animal models using scaling and transformation. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 27: 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 male pigs. Animal Science 63: 465–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welham, S. J. and Thompson, R. 1992. REML likelihood ratio tests for fixed model terms. Proceedings of the Royal Statistical Society conference, University of Sheffield, 9-11 September 1992, (abstr. ).Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. and Fawcett, R. H. 1976. Theoretical aspects of a flexible model to simulate protein and lipid growth in pigs. Animal Production 22: 87–96.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Green, D. M. and Knap, P. W. 2001. Technical review of the energy and protein requirements of growing pigs: energy. Animal Science 73: 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woltmann, M. D., Clutter, A. C., Buchanan, D. S. and Dolezal, H. G. 1991. Growth and carcass characteristics of pigs selected for fast or slow gain in relation to feed intake and efficiency. Journal of Animal Science 70: 1049–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar