Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T15:01:18.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of breed (Large White × Landrace ν. purebred Meishan) on the diets selected by pigs given a choice between two foods that differ in their crude protein contents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

I. Kyriazakis ,
K. Leus ,
G. C. Emmans ,
C. S. Haley  and
J. D. Oldham
I. Kyriazakis
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, Scottish Agricultural College Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
K. Leus
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, Scottish Agricultural College Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG Department of Preclinical Veterinary Sciences, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Summerhall, Edinburgh EH9 1QH
G. C. Emmans
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, Scottish Agricultural College Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
C. S. Haley
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research, Edinburgh Research Station, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
J. D. Oldham
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, Scottish Agricultural College Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Abstract

Two pig breeds, one improved (Cotswold Fl hybrid Large White × Landrace pigs = LWX) and the other unimproved (Chinese Meishan pigs = CM) were used to test the proposition that the genotype of the pig has an effect on the selection of a diet from two foods that differ in their crude protein content. From 21 to 34 kg live weight, the pigs were given access to either one of three foods or a choice of two foods with similar digestible energy concentration (16 MJ digestible energy per kg) but a different crude protein (CP) concentration. This resulted in four dietary treatments: (i) free and continuous access to low (L) crude protein food alone (130 g CP per kg, no. = 4 of each breed); (ii) free and continous access to high (H) crude protein food alone (252 g CP per kg, no. - 4 of each breed); (Hi) free and continuous access to moderate (M) crude protein food alone (206 g CP per kg, no. = 4 of each breed) and (iv) free and continuous access to both foods L and H as a choice (no. = 6 of each breed). On all treatments the LWX performed significantly better than the CM pigs in terms of live-weight gain and food conversion efficiency (P < 0·001). The LWX and CM pigs given access to a single food contained the same amounts of protein in their bodies at 34 kg live weight, but the CM pigs had a considerably higher lipid (P < 0·001) and a lower water content (P < 0·001). When given a choice, the LWX pigs selected a significantly higher proportion of foodH(521 v. 226 (s.e.d. 49) g food H per kg for LWX and CM respectively) and therefore, a higher CP content in their diet (194 v. 144 (s.e.d. 5·4) g CP per kg respectively) than the CM pigs. The performance of pigs given a choice between two foods, in terms of live weight and rate of protein gain, was comparable with the best performance achieved on a single food (M) for the LWX, and better than the best performance on a single food (L) for the CM pigs. Thus, when given a choice between an appropriate pair of foods that differ in their crude protein content, pigs are able to select a diet that meets their requirements and allows them to express the growth characteristics typical for their breed (genotype).

Keywords

breedfood preferencesgrowthpigsprotein intake
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 121 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

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
Anderson, G. H., Leprohon, C., Chambers, J. W. and Coscina, D. V. 1979. Intact regulation of protein intake during the development of hypothalamic or genetic obesity in rats. Physiology and Behaviour 23: 751–755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonneau, M., Mourot, J., Noblet, J., Lefaucheur, L. and Bidanel, J. P. 1990. Tissue development in Meishan pigs: muscle and fat development and metabolism and growth regulation by somatotropic hormone. In Symposium sur le pore chinois (ed. Molenat, M. and Legault, C.). Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Jouy-en Josas, France, pp. 203–213.Google Scholar
Bradford, M. M. V. and Gous, R. M. 1991a. The response of growing pigs to a choice of diets differing in protein content. Animal Production 52:185–192.Google Scholar
Bradford, M. M. V. and Gous, R. M. 1991b. A comparison of phase feeding and choice feeding as methods of meeting the amino acid requirements of growing pigs. Animal Production 52: 323–330.Google Scholar
Brody, T. B., Cherry, J. A. and Siegel, P. B. 1984. Response to dietary self selection and calories in liquid form by weight selected lines of chickens. Poultry Science 63: 1626–1633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castonguay, T. W., Rowland, N. E. and Stern, J. S. 1985. Nutritional influences on dietary selection patterns of obese and lean zucker rats. Brain Research Bulletin 14: 625–631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, P. L. 1983. A highly prolific pig breed of China. The Taihu pig. Parts I and II. Pig News and Information 4:407–425.Google Scholar
Cheng, P. L. 1984. A highly prolific pig breed of China. The Taihu pig. Parts III and IV. Pig News and Information 4: 13–18.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1977. The nutrient intake of laying hens given a choice of diets, in relation to their production requirements. British Poultry Science 18:227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, C. S., d'Agaro, E. and Ellis, M. 1992. Genetic components of growth and ultrasonic fat depth traits in Meishan and Large White pigs and their reciprocal crosses. Animal Production 54:105–115.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. 1989. Growth, feed intake and diet selection i n pigs: theory and experiments. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1991. Diet selection in pigs: dietary choices made by growing pigs following a period of underfeeding, with protein. Animal Production 52: 337–346.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. and Taylor, A. J. 1993. A note on the diets selected by boars given a choice between two foods of different protein concentrations from 44 to 103 kg live weight. Animal Production 56:151–154.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. and Whittemore, C. T. 1990. Diet selection in pigs: choices made by growing pigs given feeds of different protein concentrations. Animal Production 51:189–199.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. and Whittemore, C. T. 1991. The ability of pigs to control their protein intake when fed in three different ways. Physiology and Behaviour 50: 1197–1203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lea, S. E. G. 1979. Foraging and reinforcement schedules in the pigeon: optimal and non-optimal aspects of choice. Animal Behaviour 27: 875–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, S. P., Burnett, A. and Elmajeed, R. A. 1986. Factors affecting the diet selection of choice-fed broilers. British Poultry Science 27: 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shariatmadari, F. and Forbes, J. M. 1990. The influences of meal composition on subsequent food selection in broiler and layer chickens. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 49: 219A (abstr.).Google Scholar