Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:49:09.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic and nutritional effects on lactational performance of gilts selected for components of efficient lean growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

N.D. Cameron ,
J.C. Kerr ,
G.B. Garth ,
R. Fenty  and
A. Peacock
N.D. Cameron*
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
J.C. Kerr*
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
G.B. Garth
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
R. Fenty*
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
A. Peacock*
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
*
†E-mail Neil.Cameron@bbsrc.ac.uk
‡Present address: PPL Therapeutics, Roslin EH25 9PP
§Retired from Roslin Institute (Edinburgh)
$$Present address: JSR Healthbred, Southburn, Driffield Y025 9ED
Get access

Abstract

Lactational performance was measured in Large White gilts from lines that had been divergently selected over seven generations for daily food intake (DFI), lean food conversion ratio (LFC), lean growth rate with ad-libitum (LGA) or restricted (LGS) feeding during performance test. Control line gilts were included in the study. During the lactation period of 21 days, gilts were given to appetite five isoenergetic diets differing in ileal digestible lysine: energy (0·40, 0·58, 0·76, 0·94 and 1·12 g/MJ digestible energy). The study consisted of 223 gilts with a similar number of animals in each selection line.

Live-weight loss was greater in the low LFC and LGA lines than in the high lines and food intake was significantly lower in the low LGA line than in the high line. Litter-weight gain of the low LFC and high LGA lines were greater than in the complementary selection lines. Prediction equations for nutrient utilization were used to express the effect of diet and selection line in terms of energy and protein inputs and outputs. Selection on DFI or LGS resulted in gilts that did not mobilize lipid during lactation as sufficient energy for milk and maintenance was provided by dietary intake. In contrast, there was insufficient dietary energy with selection on LFC or on low LGA so lipid mobilization was required to achieve energy balance. The energy required to excrete excess protein and energy from lipid mobilization increased as the dietary lysine energy ratio increased, but there were no other dietary effects on energy and protein utilization. Genotype with nutrition interactions were detected for energy intake and lipid mobilization, which were due to the lines selected for low DFI and LGA. The general absence of genotype with nutrition interactions for lactational performance in gilts selected for components of efficient lean growth and the lack of significant dietary effects on energy utilization indicated that the consequences of changing nutritional inputs will be broadly similar for genotypes within the set of genotypes studied. Selection strategies which result in reduced food intake during lactation should be avoided if lipid mobilization is then required to attain energy balance and there are resultant negative effects on subsequent reproductive performance.

Keywords

genotype nutrition interactiongiltslactationlean growthselection
Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
Animal Science , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , February 2002 , pp. 25 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

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 Bureau, Farnam Royal.Google Scholar
Brand, H.van den, Heetkamp, M.J.W., Soede, N.M., Schrama, J. W. and Kemp, B. 2000. Energy balance of lactating primiparous sows as affected by feeding level and dietary energy source. Journal of Animal Science 78: 1520–1528.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., 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., Kerr, J. C., Garth, G. B. and Sloan, R. L. 1999a. Genetic and nutritional effects on age at first oestrus of gilts selected for components of efficient lean growth rate. Animal Science 69: 93–103.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D., Penman, J. C., Fisken, A. C., Nute, G. R., Perry, A. M. and Wood, J. D. 1999b. 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.Google Scholar
Coma, J., Zimmerman, D. R. and Carrion, D. 1996. Lysine requirement of the lactating sow determined by using plasma urea nitrogen as a rapid response criterion. Journal of Animal Science 74: 1056–1062.Google Scholar
Genstat Committee. 1997. Genstat 5 release 4·1 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kerr, J. C. and Cameron, N. D. 1996. Responses in gilt post-farrowing traits and pre-weaning piglet growth to divergent selection for components of efficient lean growth rate. Animal Science 63: 523–531.Google Scholar
Rauw, W. M., Luiting, P., Beilharz, R. G., Verstegen, M. W. A. and Vangen, O. 1999. Selection for litter size and its consequences for the allocation of feed resources: a concept and its implications illustrated by mice selection experiments. Livestock Production Science 60: 329–342.Google Scholar
Sauber, T. E., Stahly, T. S., Williams, N. H. and Ewan, R. C. 1998. Effect of lean growth genotype and dietary amino acid regimen on the lactational performance of sows. Journal of Animal Science 76: 1098–1111.Google Scholar
Sinclair, A. G., Shaw, J. M., Edwards, S. A., Hoste, S. and McCartney, A. 1999. The effect of dietary protein level on milk yield and composition and piglet growth and composition of the Meishan synthetic and European White breeds of sow. Animal Science 68: 701–708.Google Scholar
Touchette, K. J., Allee, G. L., Newcomb, M. D. and Boyd, R. D. 1998. The lysine requirement of lactating primiparous sows. Journal of Animal Science 76: 1091–1097.Google Scholar
Tritton, S. M., King, R. H., Campbell, R. G., Edwards, A. C. and Hughes, P. E. 1996. The effects of dietary protein and energy levels of diets offered during lactation on the lactational and subsequent reproductive performance of first-litter sows. Animal Science 62: 573–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. 1977. Selection for leanness and the energetic efficiency of growth in meat animals. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 36: 53–59.Google Scholar
Welham, S. J. and Thompson, R. 1992. REML likelihood ratio tests for fixed model terms. 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. and Morgan, C. A. 1990. Model components for the determination of energy and protein requirements for breeding sows: a review. Livestock Production Science 26: 1–37.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. and Yang, H. 1989. Physical and chemical composition of the body of breeding sows with differing body subcutaneous fat depth at parturition, differing nutrition during lactation and differing litter size. Animal Production 48: 203–212.Google Scholar
Yang, H., Pettigrew, J. E., Johnston, L. J., Shurson, G. C. and Walker, R. D. 2000. Lactational and subsequent reproductive responses of lactating sows to dietary lysine (protein) concentration. Journal of Animal Science 78: 348–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed