Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T19:41:39.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genotype with feeding regime interaction in pigs divergently selected for components of efficient lean growth rate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

N. D. Cameron  and
M. K. Curran
N. D. Cameron
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
M. K. Curran
Affiliation:
Wye College, University of London, Wye, Kent TN25 5AH
Get access

Abstract

The genotype with feeding regime interaction was examined by testing pigs from four selection groups on both ad libitum and restricted feeding regimes. Within each selection group, there were high, low and control lines, which had been selected for lean food conversion ratio (LFC), daily food intake (DFI) or lean growth rate on ad libitum (LGA) or on restricted (LGS) feeding, in Large White-Edinburgh (LW) and Landrace-Wye (LR) populations. There were 1187 LW pigs and 768 LR pigs in the study, with 344 LW and 133 LR pigs tested on the alternative feeding regime.

In the LW population, pigs in the high LGS line grew significantly faster than the high LGA and LFC lines with ad libitum feeding (919 v. 847 and 786 (s.e.d. 31) g/day), but had similar food conversion ratios and backfat depths. The high LGS and high DFI lines were similar for growth rate, daily food intake and food conversion ratio, but backfat depth was significantly lower in the high LGS line than in the high DFI line (12·0 v. 25·9 (s.e.d. 0·7) mm). On restricting feeding, the rankings of the selection lines for growth rate, food conversion ratio and mid-back fat depth were broadly similar to those with ad libitum feeding, except for the high LFC line. In the LR population, the high LGS, LGA and LFC lines did not differ significantly in growth rate, daily food intake, food conversion ratio and backfat depth within either the ad libitum or restricted feeding regimes. Growth rate of the high LGS line was similar to the high DFI line on ad libitum feeding (828 v. 836 (s.e.d. 40) g/day), but significantly higher on restricted feeding (704 v. 636 (s.e.d. 23) g/day). On both feeding regimes, food conversion ratio and backfat depth were significantly lower in the high LGS line compared with the high DFI line.

In the LW population, the genetic correlation between feeding regimes for growth rate was significantly less than one (0·4 (s.e. 0·20)), but was not significantly different from unity (0·8 (s.e. 0·14)) for backfat depths. Based on the performance test results, selection for lean growth with testing on a restricted feeding regime may be preferable to testing animals on an ad libitum feeding regime.

Keywords

food intakegenotype environment interactionlean growthpigsselection
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , August 1995 , pp. 123 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

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
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. 1994a. Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. 2. Selection pressure applied and direct responses in a Landrace herd. Animal Production 59:263–269.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D. and Curran, M. K. 1994b. Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. 4. Genetic and phenotypic parameter estimates and correlated responses in performance test traits with ad libitum feeding1. Animal Production 59:281–291.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
Fowler, V. R., Bichard, M. and Pease, A. 1976. Objectives in pig breeding. Animal Production 23:365–387.Google Scholar
Fowler, S. H. and Ensminger, M. E. 1960. Interactions between genotype and plane of nutrition in selection for rate of gain in swine. Journal of Animal Science 19:434–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee. 1989. Genstat 5 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Graser, H. U., Smith, S. P. and Tier, B. 1987. A derivative-free approach for estimating variance components in animal models by restricted maximum likelihood, journal of Animal Science 64:1362–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greef, K. H. de, Verstegen, M. W. A. and Kemp, B. 1992. Validation of a porcine growth model with emphasis on chemical body composition. Livestock Production Science 32:163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, W. G. 1978. Design of selection experiments for comparing alternative testing regimes. Heredity 41:371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juga, J. and Thompson, R. 1993. A derivative-free algorithm to estimate bivariate (co)variance components using canonical transformations and estimated rotations. Ada Agriculturae 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
Patterson, H. D. and Thompson, R. 1971. Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58:545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. 1959. The sampling variance of the genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics 15:469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. P. and Graser, H. U. 1986. Estimating variance components in a class of mixed models by restricted maximum likelihood. Journal of Dairy Science 69:1156–1165.CrossRefGoogle 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
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
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