Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-11T22:08:21.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preferential choice of diets differing in protein content by pigs selected for high or low lean growth rate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

N. D. Cameron
N. D. Cameron*
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
Get access

Extract

Testing several genotypes on one diet may impose nutritional constraints on growth of one or more of those genotypes. Use of a diet choice procedure may enable pigs to ‘choose’ the appropriate combination of the diets to attain the growth determined by their genotype. In an animal breeding context, the diet choice procedure offers the potential to increase the accuracy of predicting an animal’s genetic merit for performance test traits. In the few diet choice studies made with pigs heavier than 35 kg (e.g. Bradford and Gous, 1991), the animals have been of one genotype. Therefore, animals from the Edinburgh lean growth selection experiment (Cameron, 1994) provided the experimental resource to determine if between-selection line differences were enhanced by testing pigs on a diet choice procedure compared with testing on a single diet.

Type
Poster abstracts
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 20: Animal Choices , 1997 , pp. 111 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 1997

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

Bradford, M. M. V. and Gous, R. M. 1991. The response of growing pigs to a choice of diets differing in protein content. Animal Production 52: 185–192.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