Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5cfd469876-4h525 Total loading time: 0.393 Render date: 2021-06-25T06:30:43.853Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Article contents

Pigs that are divergent in feed efficiency, differ in intestinal enzyme and nutrient transporter gene expression, nutrient digestibility and microbial activity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2016

S. Vigors
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
T. Sweeney
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
C. J. O’Shea
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
A. K. Kelly
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
J. V. O’Doherty
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

Feed efficiency is an important trait in the future sustainability of pig production, however, the mechanisms involved are not fully elucidated. The objective of this study was to examine nutrient digestibility, organ weights, select bacterial populations, volatile fatty acids (VFA’s), enzyme and intestinal nutrient transporter gene expression in a pig population divergent in feed efficiency. Male pigs (n=75; initial BW 22.4 kg SEM 2.03 kg) were fed a standard finishing diet for 43 days before slaughter to evaluate feed intake and growth for the purpose of calculating residual feed intake (RFI). Phenotypic RFI was calculated as the residuals from a regression model regressing average daily feed intake (ADFI) on average daily gain (ADG) and midtest BW0.60 (MBW). On day 115, 16 pigs (85 kg SEM 2.8 kg), designated as high RFI (HRFI) and low RFI (LRFI) were slaughtered and digesta was collected to calculate the coefficient of apparent ileal digestibility (CAID), total tract nutrient digestibility (CATTD), microbial populations and VFA’s. Intestinal tissue was collected to examine intestinal nutrient transporter and enzyme gene expression. The LRFI pigs had lower ADFI (P<0.001), improved feed conversion ratio (P<0.001) and an improved RFI value relative to HRFI pigs (0.19 v. −0.14 SEM 0.08; P<0.001). The LRFI pigs had an increased CAID of gross energy (GE), and an improved CATTD of GE, nitrogen and dry matter compared to HRFI pigs (P<0.05). The LRFI pigs had higher relative gene expression levels of fatty acid binding transporter 2 (FABP2) (P<0.01), the sodium/glucose co-transporter 1 (SGLT1) (P<0.05), the glucose transporter GLUT2 (P<0.10), and the enzyme sucrase–isomaltase (SI) (P<0.05) in the jejunum. The LRFI pigs had increased populations of lactobacillus spp. in the caecum compared with HRFI pigs. In colonic digesta HRFI pigs had increased acetic acid concentrations (P<0.05). Differences in nutrient digestibility, intestinal microbial populations and gene expression levels of intestinal nutrient transporters could contribute to the biological processes responsible for feed efficiency in pigs.

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 11 , November 2016 , pp. 1848 - 1855
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

Access options

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

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1995. Official methods of analysis, 16th edition. AOAC, Washington, DC, USA.Google ScholarPubMed
Barea, R, Dubois, S, Gilbert, H, Sellier, P, van Milgen, J and Noblet, J 2010. Energy utilization in pigs selected for high and low residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 88, 20622072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, E 1990. Energy contributions of volatile fatty acids from the gastrointestinal tract in various species. Physiological Reviews 70, 567590.Google Scholar
Chomczynski, P and Sacchi, N 2006. The single-step method of RNA isolation by acid guanidinium thiocyanate-phenol-chloroform extraction: twenty-something years on. Nature Protocols 1, 581585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Besten, G, van Eunen, K, Groen, AK, Venema, K, Reijngoud, D-J and Bakker, BM 2013. The role of short-chain fatty acids in the interplay between diet, gut microbiota, and host energy metabolism. Journal of Lipid Research 54, 23252340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Do, DN, Ostersen, T, Strathe, AB, Mark, T, Jensen, J and Kadarmideen, HN 2014. Genome-wide association and systems genetic analyses of residual feed intake, daily feed consumption, backfat and weight gain in pigs. BMC Genetics 15, 2727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyer, J, Vayro, S, King, TP and Shirazi-Beechey, SP 2003. Glucose sensing in the intestinal epithelium. European Journal of Biochemistry 270, 33773388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egan, ÁM, Sweeney, T, Hayes, M and O’Doherty, JV 2015. Prawn shell chitosan has anti-obesogenic properties, influencing both nutrient digestibility and microbial populations in a pig model. PLoS One 10, e0144127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilliland, SE 1990. Health and nutritional benefits from lactic acid bacteria. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 87, 175188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, AJ, Patience, JF, Lonergan, SM, Dekkers, JCM and Gabler, NK 2012. Improved nutrient digestibility and retention partially explains feed efficiency gains in pigs selected for low residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 90, 164166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hellemans, J, Mortier, G, De Paepe, A, Speleman, F and Vandesompele, J 2007. qBase relative quantification framework and software for management and automated analysis of real-time quantitative PCR data. Genome Biology 8, R19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herd, RM and Arthur, PF 2009. Physiological basis for residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 87, E64E71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellett, GL and Brot-Laroche, E 2005. Apical GLUT2 a major pathway of intestinal sugar absorption. Diabetes 54, 30563062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, AK, McGee, M, Crews, DH, Fahey, AG, Wylie, AR and Kenny, DA 2010. Effect of divergence in residual feed intake on feeding behavior, blood metabolic variables, and body composition traits in growing beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science 88, 109123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kil, DY, Kim, BG and Stein, HH 2013. Feed energy evaluation for growing pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 26, 12051217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koch, RM, Swiger, LA, Chambers, D and Gregory, KE 1963. Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 22, 486494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C, Kim, J, Shin, SG and Hwang, S 2006. Absolute and relative QPCR quantification of plasmid copy number in Escherichia coli . Journal of Biotechnology 123, 273280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Littman, DR and Pamer, EG 2011. Role of the commensal microbiota in normal and pathogenic host immune responses. Cell Host & Microbe 10, 311323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, MB, O’Shea, CJ, Sweeney, T, Callan, JJ and O’Doherty, JV 2008. Effect of crude protein concentration and sugar-beet pulp on nutrient digestibility, nitrogen excretion, intestinal fermentation and manure ammonia and odour emissions from finisher pigs. Animal 2, 425434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macfarlane, S and Macfarlane, GT 2003. Regulation of short-chain fatty acid production. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 62, 6772.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mani, V, Harris, AJ, Keating, AF, Weber, TE, Dekkers, JCM and Gabler, NK 2013. Intestinal integrity, endotoxin transport and detoxification in pigs divergently selected for residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 91, 21412150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBride, BW and Kelly, JM 1990. Energy cost of absorption and metabolism in the ruminant gastrointestinal tract and liver: a review. Journal of Animal Science 68, 29973010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, JF, Bowland, JP and Aherne, FX 1977. Influence of method upon the determination of apparent digestibility in the pig. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 57, 131135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montagne, L, Loisel, F, Le Naou, T, Gondret, F, Gilbert, H and Le Gall, M 2014. Difference in short-term responses to a high-fiber diet in pigs divergently selected for residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 92, 15121523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nkrumah, JD, Okine, EK, Mathison, GW, Schmid, K, Li, C, Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Wang, Z and Moore, SS 2006. Relationships of feedlot feed efficiency, performance, and feeding behavior with metabolic rate, methane production, and energy partitioning in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 84, 145153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noblet, J, Karege, C, Dubois, S and van Milgen, J 1999. Metabolic utilization of energy and maintenance requirements in growing pigs: effects of sex and genotype. Journal of Animal Science 77, 12081216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NRC 2012. Nutrient requirements of Swine. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google ScholarPubMed
O’Shea, CJ, Sweeney, T, Bahar, B, Ryan, MT, Thornton, K and O’Doherty, JV 2012. Indices of gastrointestinal fermentation and manure emissions of growing-finishing pigs as influenced through singular or combined consumption of Lactobacillus plantarum and inulin. Journal of Animal Science 90, 38483857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, L, He, Z, Chen, W, Holzman, IR and Lin, J 2007. Effects of butyrate on intestinal barrier function in a Caco-2 cell monolayer model of intestinal barrier. Pediatric Research 61, 3741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakhshandeh, A, Dekkers, JC, Kerr, BJ, Weber, TE, English, J and Gabler, NK 2012. Effect of immune system stimulation and divergent selection for residual feed intake on digestive capacity of the small intestine in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 90 (suppl.), 233235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, E, Herd, R, Archer, J and Arthur, P 2004. Metabolic differences in Angus steers divergently selected for residual feed intake. Animal Production Science 44, 441452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saintilan, R, Mérour, I, Brossard, L, Tribout, T, Dourmad, JY, Sellier, P, Bidanel, J, van Milgen, J and Gilbert, H 2013. Genetics of residual feed intake in growing pigs: relationships with production traits, and nitrogen and phosphorus excretion traits. Journal of Animal Science 91, 25422554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, CS 1997. Microorganisms in hindgut fermentors. Gastrointestinal Microbiology 2, 142186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varley, PF, Flynn, B, Callan, JJ and O’Doherty, JV 2011. Effect of phytase level in a low phosphorus diet on performance and bone development in weaner pigs and the subsequent effect on finisher pig bone development. Livestock Science 138, 152158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, A, Sweeney, T, O’Shea, C, Doyle, D and O’Doherty, J 2013. Effect of dietary laminarin and fucoidan on selected microbiota, intestinal morphology and immune status of the newly weaned pig. British Journal of Nutrition 110, 16301638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, JM, Cai, W and Dekkers, JCM 2011. Effect of selection for residual feed intake on feeding behavior and daily feed intake patterns in Yorkshire swine. Journal of Animal Science 89, 639647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, JM and Dekkers, JCM 2012. The genetic and biological basis of residual feed intake as a measure of feed efficiency. In Feed efficiency in swine (ed. J Patience), pp. 153166. Wageningen Academic Publishers, the Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Vigors supplementary material

Tables S1-S6

Download Vigors supplementary material(File)
File 34 KB

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.

Pigs that are divergent in feed efficiency, differ in intestinal enzyme and nutrient transporter gene expression, nutrient digestibility and microbial activity
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.

Pigs that are divergent in feed efficiency, differ in intestinal enzyme and nutrient transporter gene expression, nutrient digestibility and microbial activity
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.

Pigs that are divergent in feed efficiency, differ in intestinal enzyme and nutrient transporter gene expression, nutrient digestibility and microbial activity
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *