Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:08:03.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The responses of growing pigs, of different sex and genotype, to dietary energy and protein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. F. Fuller ,
M. F. Franklin ,
R. McWilliam  and
K. Pennie
M. F. Fuller
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
M. F. Franklin
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service, Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
R. McWilliam
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
K. Pennie
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Get access

Abstract

Intact male pigs from two nucleus breeding herds (one predominantly Duroc, DM; the other purebred Large Wliite, LM) together with intact male (RM), castrated male (RC) and female (RF) commercial hybrid pigs were given one of two diets, with the same balanced protein (180 or 240 g/kg) at three daily rates, the highest being ‘to appetite‘. Six replicates of 30 pigs were allocated to these regimes at 40 kg: one replicate was slaughtered immediately to determine initial carcass composition; the remaining pigs were slaughtered at 85 kg when carcass fat and specific gravity (SG) were measured. For two replicates this was followed by dissection and chemical analysis: daily gains of carcass lipid and protein were estimated directly for these two replicates and predicted from carcass weight and SG for the other three. Fed ‘to appetite’, castrated males and females ate more than males; LM pigs ate least. All males grew faster than females or castrated males, the DM pigs the fastest, these rankings being relatively insensitive to feeding level. However, both in daily weight gain and daily protein accretion only the males responded to additional dietary protein. Daily body protein accretion of DM pigs increased linearly with intake on both diets whereas LM pigs showed little response to the highest level of feeding. At the same daily protein intake all pigs had higher rates of body protein accretion on the low protein diet, showing that they were sensitive to additional dietary energy. Results indicate that an animal's superiority may result from a greater efficiency of protein utilization or a higher lean growth potential but that these two characteristics are not simply related.

Keywords

energy intakegenotypespigsprotein intakesex
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , April 1995 , pp. 291 - 298
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

Agricultural Research Council. 1981. The nutrient requirements of pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Black, J. L, Campbell, R. G., Williams, I. H., James, K. J. and Davies, G. T. 1986. Simulation of energy and amino acid utilization in the pig. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 121–145.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. G. and Taverner, M. R. 1987. Effect of strain and sex on protein and energy metabolism in growing pigs. In Energy metabolism of farm animals (ed. Moe, P. W., Tyrrell, H. F. and Reynolds, P. J.), pp. 78–85. Rowman and Littlefield, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. G. and Taverner, M. R. 1988. Genotype and sex effects on the relationship between energy intake and protein deposition in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 66: 676–686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, R. G., Steele, N. C., Caperna, T. J., McMurtry, J. P., Solomon, M. B. and Mitchell, A. D. 1989. Interrelationships between sex and exogenous growth hormone administration on performance, body composition and protein and fat accretion of growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 67: 177–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuller, M. F. 1981. Sex differences in the nutrition and growth of pigs. In Recent advances in animal nutrition — 1980 (ed. Haresign, W. A.), pp. 157–169. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, M. F. and Wang, T. C. 1990. Digestible ideal protein — a measure of dietary protein value. Pig News and Information 11: 353–357.Google Scholar
Fuller, M. F., Yen, H. T. and Lin, H. S. 1974. The growth and body composition of pigs of two genotypes on different nutritional regimes. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production 3: 86 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Fuller, M. F., English, P. R., Livingstone, R. M. and Crofts, R. M. J. 1976. Effects of simultaneous reductions of food intake and dietary protein concentration on the growth and carcass quality of bacon pigs. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 86: 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, D. S. and McCracken, K. J. 1992. Energy: protein interactions in growing boars of high genetic potential for lean growth. 2. Effects on chemical composition of gain and whole-body protein turn-over. Animal Production 54: 83–93.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. and Fawcett, R. H. 1974. Model responses of the growing pig to the dietary intake of energy and protein. Animal Production 19: 221–231.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Tullis, J. B. and Emmans, G. C. 1988. Protein growth in pigs. Animal Production 46: 437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yen, H. T., Cole, D. J. A. and Lewis, D. 1986. Amino acid requirements of growing pigs. 7. The response of pigs from 25 to 55 kg live weight to dietary ideal protein. Animal Production 43: 141–154.Google Scholar