Literature DB >> 23365317

Improved nutrient digestibility and retention partially explains feed efficiency gains in pigs selected for low residual feed intake.

A J Harris1, J F Patience, S M Lonergan, C J M Dekkers, N K Gabler.   

Abstract

Residual feed intake (RFI) is a unique measure of feed efficiency (FE) and an alternative to traditional measures. The RFI is defined as the difference between the actual feed intake of a pig and its expected feed intake based on a given amount of growth and backfat. Therefore, selecting pigs with a low RFI (LRFI) results in a more feed-efficient animal for a given rate of growth. Our objective was to determine the extent to which apparent total tract digestibility of nutrients and energy use and retention may explain FE differences between pigs divergently selected for LRFI or high RFI (HRFI). After 7 generations of selection, 12 HRFI and 12 LRFI pigs (62 ± 3 kg BW) were randomly assigned to metabolism crates. Pigs had free access to a standard diet based on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) meal containing 0.4% TiO(2), an exogenous digestibility marker. After a 7-d acclimation, total urine and feces were collected for 72 h. Nutrient and energy digestibility, P digestibility, and N balance were then measured and calculated to determine differences between the RFI lines. As expected, ADFI was lower (2.0 vs. 2.6 kg; P < 0.01), ADG did not differ, and FE was higher in the LRFI (P < 0.001) compared to the HRFI pigs. The digestibility values for DM (87.3 vs. 85.9%), N (88.3 vs. 86.1%), and GE (86.9 vs. 85.4%) were higher (P ≤ 0.003) in the LRFI vs. HRFI pigs, respectively. The DE (16.59 vs. 16.32 MJ/kg DM) and ME (15.98 vs. 15.72 MJ/kg DM) values were also greater (P < 0.001) in LRFI pigs. When correcting for ADFI, P digestibility did not differ between the lines. However, the LRFI pigs tended to have improved N retention (P = 0.08) compared to HRFI pigs (36.9 vs. 32.1 g/d). In conclusion, the higher energy and nutrient digestibility, use, and retention may partially explain the superior FE seen in pigs selected for LRFI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23365317     DOI: 10.2527/jas.53855

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  15 in total

1.  Effects of divergent selection for residual feed intake on nitrogen metabolism and lysine utilization in growing pigs.

Authors:  Deltora J Hewitt; Jack C M Dekkers; Treyson Antonick; Abbasali Gheisari; Amanda R Rakhshandeh; Anoosh Rakhshandeh
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Effect of a dual enteric and respiratory pathogen challenge on swine growth, efficiency, carcass composition, and pork quality1.

Authors:  Amanda C Outhouse; Emma T Helm; Brian M Patterson; Jack C M Dekkers; Wendy M Rauw; Kent J Schwartz; Nicholas K Gabler; Elisabeth Huff-Lonergan; Steven M Lonergan
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Effect of lower-energy, higher-fiber diets on pigs divergently selected for residual feed intake when fed higher-energy, lower-fiber diets.

Authors:  E D Mauch; J M Young; N V L Serão; W L Hsu; J F Patience; B J Kerr; T E Weber; N K Gabler; J C M Dekkers
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-04-14       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  Impact of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and Lawsonia intracellularis on the performance of pigs divergently selected for feed efficiency.

Authors:  Emma T Helm; Amanda C Outhouse; Kent J Schwartz; Jack C M Dekkers; Steven M Lonergan; Wendy M Rauw; Nicholas K Gabler
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 3.159

5.  Different Coefficients and Exponents for Metabolic Body Weight in a Model to Estimate Individual Feed Intake for Growing-finishing Pigs.

Authors:  S A Lee; C Kong; O Adeola; B G Kim
Journal:  Asian-Australas J Anim Sci       Date:  2016-09-09       Impact factor: 2.509

Review 6.  Review: divergent selection for residual feed intake in the growing pig.

Authors:  H Gilbert; Y Billon; L Brossard; J Faure; P Gatellier; F Gondret; E Labussière; B Lebret; L Lefaucheur; N Le Floch; I Louveau; E Merlot; M-C Meunier-Salaün; L Montagne; P Mormede; D Renaudeau; J Riquet; C Rogel-Gaillard; J van Milgen; A Vincent; J Noblet
Journal:  Animal       Date:  2017-01-25       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  A review of feed efficiency in swine: biology and application.

Authors:  John F Patience; Mariana C Rossoni-Serão; Néstor A Gutiérrez
Journal:  J Anim Sci Biotechnol       Date:  2015-08-06

8.  Genetic parameters and expected responses to selection for components of feed efficiency in a Duroc pig line.

Authors:  Juan P Sánchez; Mohamed Ragab; Raquel Quintanilla; Max F Rothschild; Miriam Piles
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Unraveling the Fecal Microbiota and Metagenomic Functional Capacity Associated with Feed Efficiency in Pigs.

Authors:  Hui Yang; Xiaochang Huang; Shaoming Fang; Maozhang He; Yuanzhang Zhao; Zhenfang Wu; Ming Yang; Zhiyan Zhang; Congying Chen; Lusheng Huang
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 5.640

10.  Strategies towards Improved Feed Efficiency in Pigs Comprise Molecular Shifts in Hepatic Lipid and Carbohydrate Metabolism.

Authors:  Henry Reyer; Michael Oster; Elizabeth Magowan; Dirk Dannenberger; Siriluck Ponsuksili; Klaus Wimmers
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 5.923

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.