Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T18:34:27.757Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diet selection in pigs: choices made by growing pigs given foods of different protein concentrations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

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

Abstract

To test the proposition that growing pigs, when given a choice between two foods, are able to select a diet that meets their requirements, and to investigate the rules of diet selection, four foods (L, A, B and H) with similar energy yields, but different concentrations of crude protein (CP) (125, 174, 213 and 267 g CP per kg fresh food respectively) were formulated. The four foods were offered ad libitum either singly, or as a two-way choice using all the six possible pairs, to 40 individually caged pigs from 12 to 30 kg live weight. On the single foods the rate of food intake fell from 1001 to 971 to 961 to 868 (s.e.d. 40) g/day (F < 0·05) as the protein concentration of the foods increased from L to H; the growth rate followed an opposite trend (492, 627, 743 and 693 (s.e.d. 31) g/day respectively; P < 0·01). When the pigs had to select between two foods limiting in protein (L and A) the less limiting one was preferred (710 (s.e. 200) g A per kg total food intake; the protein concentration of the selected diet was 160 (s.e. 10) g CP per kg). On the choice between B and H (a choice between a food with protein concentration close to requirements and a food with protein excess) the lower food was markedly preferred (928 (s.e. 4) g B per kg total food intake; the protein concentration of the selected diet was 218 (s.e. 1) g CP per kg). When the animals were given a choice between two foods, a combination of which was non-limiting (pairs LB, LH, AB and AH), the protein concentrations of the selected diets were not different between treatments (208, 204, 202 and 205 (s.e.d. 13) g CP per kg respectively) and they also declined systematically with time and weight. The growth rate of the animals on these pairs were 752, 768, 769 and 763 (s.e.d. 54) g/day (P > 0·05), which were not significantly different from the highest growth rate achieved on a single food. The results suggest that pigs, when given a choice between a suitable pair of foods, are able to choose a balanced diet and to change its composition to reflect their changing requirements. The choice-feeding method may well be useful as an effective and economic way of estimating and meeting requirements, and of measuring the growth potential of pigs.

Keywords

dietary proteinfood preferencespigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , August 1990 , pp. 189 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1990

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

Adams, H. P. and Ward, R. E. 1957. The ability of growing-fattening swine to balance their rations when self fed corn and protein supplements containing varying amounts of dehydrated alfalfa leaf meal. Journal of Animal Science 16: 1082–1083 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1981. The Nutrient Requirements of Pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.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
Braude, R. 1967. The effect of changes in feeding patterns on the performance of pigs. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 26: 163–181.Google Scholar
Charnov, E. L., Orians, G. H. and Hyatt, K. 1976. The ecological implications of resource depression. American Naturalist 110: 247–259.Google Scholar
Cropper, M. R. 1987. Growth and development of sheep in relation to feeding strategy. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1979. Free-choice feeding of laying poultry. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition—1978 (ed. Haresign, W. and Lewis, D.), pp. 31–39. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Evvard, T. M. 1915. Is the appetite of swine a reliable indication of its physiological needs? Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 22: 375–403.Google Scholar
Harper, A. E. 1974. Amino acid excess. In Nutrients in Processed Foods — Proteins (ed. White, P. L. and Fletcher, D. C.), pp. 49–59. Publishing Sciences Group, Acton, Mass.Google Scholar
Henry, Y. 1985. Dietary factors involved in feed intake regulation in growing pigs: a review. Livestock Production Science 12: 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holcombe, D. J., Roland, D. A. and Harms, R. H. 1976. The ability of hens to regulate phosphorus intake when offered a choice of diets containing different levels of phosphorus. Poultry Science 55: 308–317.Google Scholar
Hughes, B. O. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1972. Hypothetical mechanisms underlying calcium appetite in fowls. Revue Comportement Animate 6: 95–106.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R. and McCleery, H. 1984. Optimisation in behavioural ecology. In Behavioural Ecology — an Evolutionary Approach. 2nd ed. (ed. Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B.), Chapter 4. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. 1989. Growth, feed intake and diet selection in pigs: theory and experiments. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google 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
Lea, S. E. G. 1979. Foraging and reinforcement schedules in the pigeon; optimal and non-optimal aspects of choice. Animal Behaviour 27: 875–886.Google Scholar
Musten, B., Peace, D. and Anderson, G. H. 1974. Food intake regulation in the weanling rat: self-selection of protein and energy. Journal of Nutrition 104: 563–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riley, J. E. 1989. Recent trends in pig production: the importance of intake. In The Voluntary Feed Intake of Pigs (ed. Forbes, J. M., Varley, M. A. and Lawrence, T. L. J.), Occasional Publication, British Society of Animal Production, No. 13, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Rose, S. P. and Michie, W. 1982. The food intakes and growth of choice-fed turkeys offered balancer mixtures of different compositions. British Poultry Science 23: 547–554.Google ScholarPubMed
Shettleworth, S. J. 1978. Reinforcement and the organisation of behaviour in golden hamsters: punishment of three action patterns. Learning and Motivation 9: 99–123.Google Scholar
Silverman, A. P. 1978. Animal Behaviour in the Laboratory. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Stabler, A. L. 1911. Pig feeding experiments and two kinds of hoghouses. Maryland Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin 150: 108–113.Google Scholar
Staddon, J. E. R. 1983. Adaptive Behaviour and Learning. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Tullis, J. B. and Emmans, G. C. 1988. Protein growth in pigs. Animal Production 46: 437–445.Google Scholar