Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T21:41:19.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of pig genotype (Iberian v. Landrace × Large White) on nutrient digestibility, relative organ weight and small intestine structure at two stages of growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2010

R. Barea ,
R. Nieto ,
F. Vitari ,
C. Domeneghini  and
J. F. Aguilera
R. Barea
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology and Biochemistry of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Nutrition (IFNA), Estación Experimental del Zaidín (CSIC), Camino del Jueves s/n, 18100 Armilla, Granada, Spain
R. Nieto
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology and Biochemistry of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Nutrition (IFNA), Estación Experimental del Zaidín (CSIC), Camino del Jueves s/n, 18100 Armilla, Granada, Spain
F. Vitari
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Sciences and Technologies for Food Safety, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Domenico Trentacoste 2, 20134 Milan, Italy
C. Domeneghini
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Sciences and Technologies for Food Safety, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Domenico Trentacoste 2, 20134 Milan, Italy
J. F. Aguilera*
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology and Biochemistry of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Nutrition (IFNA), Estación Experimental del Zaidín (CSIC), Camino del Jueves s/n, 18100 Armilla, Granada, Spain
*
†E-mail: jose.aguilera@eez.csic.es
Get access

Abstract

Although the effects of pig genotype on total-tract apparent digestibility (TTAD) have been widely reported in the literature, there is controversial information on the digestive capacity of indigenous breeds compared with lean-type pigs. The strategy of this study was to test the effects of pig genotype and crude protein (CP) supply on performance, digestive utilization of nutrients, relative organ weight and morphometric analysis of the small intestine. Thirty-eight Iberian (IB) and Landrace × Large White (LD) pigs were used. Three pigs per genotype were slaughtered at approximately 15 kg BW. The remaining pigs were fed one of two diets differing in CP content (13% or 17% as fed) using a pair-fed procedure. Feeding level was restricted at 0.8 × ad libitum of IB pigs. Nutrient digestibility and nitrogen (N) balance trials were performed at 30 and 80 kg BW. Four pigs per dietary treatment and genotype were slaughtered at approximately 50 and 115 kg BW. The gastrointestinal tract and the rest of the visceral organs were weighed and samples of the small intestine were taken to carry out histological and histometrical studies. Daily gain and gain-to-feed ratio were higher in LD than in IB pigs during the fattening and growing–fattening periods (P < 0.01). N TTAD was significantly higher for LD pigs at 30 kg BW (P < 0.05), whereas at 80 kg BW we observed greater values for digestibility of organic matter and energy in IB pigs (averaging 1.5%, P < 0.01). Both N retention (NR) and efficiency of NR were increased in LD pigs at 30 and 80 kg BW (30% as mean value). The proportional weight of the small intestine was greater in LD than in IB pigs at 50 and 115 kg BW. Histometry showed that IB presented a lower muscle layer thickness than LD pigs in ileum, irrespective of the BW (P < 0.05). In contrast, LD pigs showed approximately 10% higher ileal villi length and villi-to-crypt ratio than IB pigs at 115 kg BW. CP supply affected to a larger extent the small intestinal micro-anatomical structure of LD pigs at 50 kg BW. In conclusion, our results suggests that although the higher growth rate, NR and efficiency of NR observed in LD pigs might be associated with presumably more efficient structural aspects of the small intestine, the main differences between the two genotypes should be attributed to a larger extent to protein and energy utilization in tissues with consequences for the overall efficiency of energy use.

Keywords

crude proteindigestibilitygenotypesmall intestinepig
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , 23 February 2011 , pp. 547 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Ball, RO, Aherne, FX 1987. Influence of dietary nutrient density, level of feed intake and weaning age on young pigs. 2. Apparent nutrient digestibility and incidence and severity of diarrhea. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67, 1105–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barea, R, Nieto, R, Aguilera, JF 2007. Effects of the dietary protein content and the feeding level on protein and energy metabolism in Iberian pigs growing from 50 to 100 kg body weight. Animal 1, 357–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
British Society of Animal Science (BSAS) 2003. Nutrient requirement standards for pigs. BSAS, Penicuik, UK.Google Scholar
Campbell, RG, Taverner, MR 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
Dourmad, JY, Sève, B, Latimier, P, Boisen, S, Fernández, J, van der Peet-Schwering, C, Jongbloed, AW 1999. Nitrogen consumption, utilisation and losses in pig production in France, The Netherlands and Denmark. Livestock Production Science 58, 261–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, JA, Jørgensen, H, Just, A 1986. Comparative digestibility experiments with growing pigs and adult sows. Animal Production 43, 127–132.Google Scholar
Février, C, Bourdon, D, Aumaitre, A 1992. Effects of level of dietary fibre from wheat bran on digestibility of nutrients, digestive enzymes and performance in the European Large White and Chinese Mei Shan pig. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 68, 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freire, JPB, Dias, RIM, Cunha, LF, Aumaitre, A 2003. The effect of genotype and dietary fibre level on the caecal bacterial enzyme activity of young piglets: digestive consequences. Animal Feed Science and Technology 106, 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Valverde, R, Barea, R, Lara, L, Nieto, R, Aguilera, JF 2008. The effects of feeding level upon protein and fat deposition in Iberian heavy pigs. Livestock Science 114, 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, HK, Van Soest, PJ 1970. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagent, procedures and some applications), Agricultural handbook no. 379. ARS-USDA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Guay, F, Donovan, SM, Trottier, NL 2006. Biochemical and morphological developments are partially impaired in intestinal mucosa from growing pigs fed reduced-protein diets supplemented with crystalline amino acids. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1749–1760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamard, A, Sève, B, Le Floc’h, N 2007. Intestinal development and growth performance of early-weaned piglets fed a low-threonine diet. Animal 1, 1134–1142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemp, B, den Hartog, LA, Klok, JJ, Zandstra, T 1991. The digestibility of nutrients, energy and nitrogen in the Meishan and Dutch Landrace pigs. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 65, 263–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koong, LJ, Nienaber, JA, Mersmann, HJ 1983. Effects of plane of nutrition on organ size and fasting heat production in genetically obese and lean pigs. Journal of Nutrition 113, 1626–1631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kouba, M, Bonneau, M, Noblet, J 1999. Relative development of subcutaneous, intermuscular, and kidney fat in growing pigs with different body compositions. Journal of Animal Science 77, 622–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laplace, JP, Souffrant, WB, Hennig, U, Chabeauti, E, Fevrier, C 1994. Measurement of precaecal dietary protein and plant cell wall digestion in pigs; comparison of four surgical procedures for ileorectal anastomosis. Livestock Production Science 40, 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Len, NT, Ngoc, TB, Ogle, B, Lindberg, JE 2009. Ileal and total tract digestibility in local (Mong Cai) and exotic (Landrace × Yorkshire) piglets fed low and high-fibre diets, with or without enzyme supplementation. Livestock Science 126, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, P, Piao, XS, Kim, SW, Wang, L, Shen, YB, Lee, HS, Li, SY 2008. Effects of chito-oligosaccharide supplementation on the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, intestinal morphology, and fecal shedding of Escherichia coli and Lactobacillus in weaning pigs. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2609–2618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ly, J, Diéguez, FJ, Martinez, RM, García, A 1998. Digestion of a diet very high in fibre in Cuban Creole pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 72, 397–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales, J, Pérez, JF, Baucells, MD, Mourot, J, Gasa, J 2002. Comparative digestibility and lipogenic activity in Landrace and Iberian finishing pigs fed ad libitum corn and corn-sorghum-acorn based diets. Livestock Production Science 77, 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieto, R, Miranda, A, García, MA, Aguilera, JF 2002. The effect of dietary protein content and feeding level on the rate of protein deposition and energy utilization in growing Iberian pigs from 15 to 50 kg body weight. British Journal of Nutrition 88, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nieto, R, Lara, L, García, MA, Gómez, F, Zalvide, M, Cruz, M, Pariente, JM, Moreno, A, Aguilera, JF 2001. Evaluation of an integrated feeding system in the Iberian pig. Study of food consumption and productive parameters. Sólo Cerdo Ibérico 6, 57–69.Google Scholar
Noblet, J, Shi, XS 1993. Comparative digestibility of energy and nutrients in growing pigs fed ad libitum and adult sows at maintenance. Livestock Production Science 34, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noblet, J, van Milgen, J 2004. Energy value of pig feeds: effect of pig body weight and energy evaluation system. Journal of Animal Science 82, E229–E238.Google ScholarPubMed
Noblet, J, Karage, C, Dubois, S, van Milgen, J 1999. Metabolic utilization of energy and maintenance requirements in growing pigs: effects of sex and genotype. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1208–1216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pluske, JR, Thompson, MJ, Atwood, CS, Bird, PH, Williams, LH, Hartmenn, PE 1996. Maintenance of villus height and crypt depth, and enhancement of disaccharide digestion and monosaccharide absorption, in piglets fed on cows’ whole milk after weaning. British Journal of Nutrition 76, 409–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quiniou, N, Dourmad, JY, Noblet, J 1996. Effect of energy intake on the performance of different types of pig from 45 to 100 kg body weight. 1. Protein and lipid deposition. Animal Science 63, 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, DS, McCracken, KJ 1992. Energy : protein interactions in growing boars of high genetic potential for lean growth. 1. Effects on growth, carcass characteristics and organ weights. Animal Production 54, 75–82.Google Scholar
Redlich, J, Souffrant, WB, Laplace, JP, Hennig, U, Berg, R, Mouwen, JMVM 1997. Morphometry of the small intestine in pigs with ileo-rectal anastomosis. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 61, 21–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Rivera-Ferre, MG, Aguilera, JF, Nieto, R 2005. Muscle fractional protein synthesis is greater in Iberian than in Landrace growing pigs fed adequate or lysine-deficient diets. Journal of Nutrition 135, 469–478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rivera-Ferre, MG, Aguilera, JF, Nieto, R 2006. Differences in whole-body protein turnover between Iberian and Landrace pigs fed adequate or lysine-deficient diets. Journal of Animal Science 84, 3346–3355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salgado, P, Freire, JPB, Mourato, M, Cabral, F, Toullec, R, Lallès, JP 2002. Comparative effects of different legume protein sources in weaned piglets: nutrient digestibility, intestinal morphology and digestive enzymes. Livestock Production Science 74, 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauvant, D, Perez, JM, Tran, G 2004. Tables of composition and nutritional value of feed materials. Pigs, poultry, cattle, sheep, goats, rabbits, horses, fish. INRA Editions and AFZ, Paris, France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorbek, G, Chwalibog, A, Henckel, S 1984. Nitrogen and energy metabolism in pigs of Danish Landrace from 20 to 120 kg live weight. Norm for protein and energy requirements for maintenance and growth. Report no. 563. National Institute of Animal Science, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Varel, VH, Jung, HG, Pond, WG 1988. Effects of dietary fibre of young adult genetically lean, obese and contemporary pigs: rate of passage, digestibility and microbiological data. Journal of Animal Science 66, 707–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yue, LY, Qiao, SY 2008. Effects of low-protein diets supplemented with crystalline amino acids on performance and intestinal development in piglets over the first 2 weeks after weaning. Livestock Science 115, 144–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zitnan, R, Voigt, J, Kuhla, S, Wegner, J, Chudy, A, Schönhusen, U, Brna, M, Zupcanova, M, Hagemeister, H 2008. Morphology of small intestinal mucosa and intestinal weight change with metabolic type of cattle. Veterinarni Medicina 53, 525–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar