Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-8sgpw Total loading time: 0.287 Render date: 2021-03-05T19:26:14.074Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

The response of weaner pigs to a choice of foods differing in protein content

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. M. V. Bradford
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Poultry Science, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
R. M. Gous
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Poultry Science, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
Get access

Abstract

Two experiments were designed to test the hypothesis that young growing pigs between 7 and 25 kg live weight are capable of selecting a diet which closely matches their changing requirement for amino acids, when offered a choke between two balanced foods differing only in their protein content. In the first experiment, three single-food treatments (8·6,11·7 and 17·4 g lysine per kg food) and one choice-feeding treatment (8·6 v. 17·4 g lysine per kg food), were used. In the second experiment, three foods of similar nutrient composition (approx. 14·7 g lysine per kg food) were formulated using different ingredients (fish meal, soya-bean oilcake meal and a combination of sunflower-, cottonseed- and groundnut-oilcake meals). These were fed either alone or as a choice with each other or with a low protein food (8·3 g lysine per kg food) to test whether palatability or anti-nutritional factors would override the selection based on protein alone. In both experiments, 10 pigs were housed per pen, with males and females being penned separately. One food bin with a central partition was supplied per pen, and an initial 6-day training period was used, in which pigs experienced each of the two foods on offer, separately, at daily intervals. All pigs were weighed weekly, as was the amount of food consumed in each pen. The conclusions reached were that growing pigs are able to differentiate successfully between two foods on the basis of their amino acid contents, and of changing the selected diet to match their changing requirement for dietary amino acids. However, one of the foods on offer appeared to contain either anti-nutritive factors or unpalatable components, and whereas the piglets performed as well on this as on the other foods of similar nutrient content when these foods were offered as the sole source of food, they actively selected against this food when it was offered as a choice, even if this meant their growing at a significantly slower rate than that of which they were capable.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Aherne, F. X. and Kennelly, J. J. 1985. Oilseed meals for livestock feeding. In Recent developments in pig nutrition (ed Cole, D. J. A. and Haresign, W.), pp. 278315. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1975. Official methods of analysis (ed. Horwitz, W.). 12 ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bradford, M. M. V. and Gous, R M. 1991a. The response of growing pigs to a choice of diets differing in protein content. Animal Production 52: 185192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, M. M. V. and Gous, R. M. 1991b. A comparison of phase feeding and choice feeding as methods of meeting the amino acid requirements of growing pigs. Animal Production 52: 323330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunha, T. J. 1977. Swine feeding and nutrition. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1981. A model of the growth and feed intake of ad libitum fed animals, particularly poultry. In Computers in animal production (ed. Hillyer, G. M., Whittemore, C. T. and Gunn, R. G.), occasional publication, British Society of Animal Production, no. 5, pp. 103110.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1988. The growth of turkeys. In Recettf advances in turkey science (ed. Nixey, C. and Grey, T. C.), pp. 135166. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Ferguson, N. S. 1989. An approach to modelling feed intake, body composition and nutrient requirements in growing pigs. M.Sc.Agric, Thesis, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg.Google Scholar
Henry, Y. 1968. Libre consommation de principes energetiques at azotes chez le rat et chez le pore selon la nature de la source azotee, sa concentration dans le regime et le mode de presentation. Annales de la Nutrition de i'Alimentation 22: 121140.Google Scholar
Henry, Y. 1985. Dietary factors involved in feed intake regulation in growing pigs: a review. Livestock Production Science 12: 339354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. 1989. Growth, feed intake and diet selection i n pigs: theory and experiments. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1990. The immediate effect of abrupt diet composition changes in young pigs. British fournal of Nutrition. 64: 619623.CrossRefGoogle 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: 189199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1984. GENSTAT V Mark 4.04B. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
Smith, F. H. 1968. Estimation of free gossypol in cottonseed meal and cottonseed meats: modified method. Journal of the American Oil Chemistry Society 45: 903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanksley, T. D. 1970. Use of cottonseed meal in swine rations. Feedstuffs 42: 2224.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 9 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 5th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The response of weaner pigs to a choice of foods differing in protein content
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The response of weaner pigs to a choice of foods differing in protein content
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The response of weaner pigs to a choice of foods differing in protein content
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *