Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bvgqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T04:39:43.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of body weight and energy intake on the composition of deposited tissue in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2016

K. H. de Greef ,
M. W. A. Verstegen ,
B. Kemp  and
P. L. van der Togt
K. H. de Greef
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition, Agricultural University, Haagsteeg 4, 6708 PM Wageningen, The Netherlands
M. W. A. Verstegen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition, Agricultural University, Haagsteeg 4, 6708 PM Wageningen, The Netherlands
B. Kemp
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition, Agricultural University, Haagsteeg 4, 6708 PM Wageningen, The Netherlands
P. L. van der Togt
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition, Agricultural University, Haagsteeg 4, 6708 PM Wageningen, The Netherlands
Get access

Abstract

Many pig growth models assume that there is no effect of energy intake and of body weight on the ratio of lipid to protein deposition rate in pigs below their maximal protein deposition rate. An experiment was performed to check whether an effect of body weight and of amount of energy intake on this partitioning of energy is indeed absent when protein deposition is limited by energy intake. Two constant amounts of energy were given above maintenance requirement (12·6 and 16·3 MJ digestible energy (DE) per day for production, treatment L and H, respectively). A total of 52 entire male pigs were slaughtered at 25,45, 65, 85 or 105 kg live weight. Results showed that, for both levels of intake, the ratio of lipid to protein deposition rate increased with increasing body weight. At the L energy intake, the ratio of lipid to protein deposition rate increased from 0·74 at 25 kg to 0·99 at 105 kg body weight. In animals receiving the H treatment, the ratio of lipid to protein deposition rate increased from 0·82 to 1·35 in that weight range. This change in nutrient partition was also reflected in daily gain. Daily gain declined with increasing live weight, a decrease of 150 g/day over the weight range 25 to 105 kg. The 3·7 MJ DE difference in energy intake between treatment H and L resulted in an average overall difference of 105 g daily gain. A control group fed ad libitum showed that protein deposition capacity was above 200 g/day, thus the pigs at the L and H treatment were below their protein deposition capacity. It was concluded that both live weight and energy intake influence the ratio of lipid to protein deposition rate. The mechanism of partitioning between lipid and protein deposition below maximal protein deposition capacity needs further specification in order to improve the predictions of growth models which use the linear-plateau concept.

Keywords

body weightenergy intakelipid metabolismpigsprotein metabolism.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 263 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1994

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agricultural Research Council. 1981. The nutrient requirements of pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Bergström, P. L. and Kroeske, D. 1968. Methods of carcass assessment in research on carcass quality in the Netherlands. I. Description of methods. Report C-123, IVO, Zeist, The Netherlands and Proceedings of the ninth annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Dublin.Google Scholar
Black, J. L. and Griffiths, D. A. 1975. Effects of live weight and energy intake on nitrogen balance and total N requirement of lambs. British Journal of Nutrition 33: 399–413.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. G. 1988. Nutritional constraints to lean tissue accretion in farm animals. Nutrition Research Reviews 1: 233–253.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.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. G., Taverner, M. R. and Curic, D. M. 1983. Effects of feeding level from 20 to 45 kg on the performance and body composition of female and entire male pigs. Animal Production 36: 193–199.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. G., Taverner, M. R. and Curic, D. M. 1985. Effects of sex and energy intake between 48 and 90 kg live weight on protein deposition in growing pigs. Animal Production 40: 497–503.Google Scholar
Evans, D. G. and Kempster, A. J. 1979. The effects of genotype, sex and feeding regimen on pig carcass development. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93: 339–347.Google Scholar
Greef, K. H. de. 1992. Prediction of production. Nutrition induced tissue partitioning in growing pigs. Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University.Google Scholar
Greef, K. H. de, Verstegen, M. W. A. and Kemp, B. 1992. Validation of a porcine growth model with emphasis on chemical body composition. Livestock Production Science 32: 163–180.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1932. Problems of relative growth. 2nd ed.Dover Publications, New York.Google Scholar
Kotarbinska, M. 1969. Badania nad przemiana energii u rosnacych swin. Institut Zootechniki, Wydewnictwa Wlasne, nr. 238, Wroclaw.Google Scholar
Moughan, P. J., Smith, W. C. and Stevens, E. V. J. 1990. Allometric growth of chemical body components and several organs in the pig (20–90 kg liveweight). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 33: 77–84.Google Scholar
Moughan, P. J., Smith, W. C. and Pearson, G. 1987. Description and validation of a model simulating growth in the pig (20–90 kg liveweight). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 30: 481–489.Google Scholar
Pomar, C., Harris, D. L. and Minvielle, F. 1991. Computer simulation model of swine production systems: I. Modeling the growth of young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 69: 1468–1488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1990. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed.SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Süsenbeth, A. J. J. 1984. Berechnug der Körperzusammensetzung von Schweinen aus dem mit Hilfe von D20 bestimmten Körperwasser. Thesis Universität Hohenheim.Google Scholar
Walstra, P. 1980. Growth and carcass composition from birth to maturity in relation to feeding level and sex in Dutch Landrace pigs. Thesis, Agricultural University Wageningen.Google Scholar
Watt, D. L., DeShazer, J. A., Ewan, R. C., Harold, R. L., Mahan, D. C. and Schwab, G. D. 1987. NCCISwine: housing, nutrition, and growth simulation model. Applied Agricultural Research 2: 218–223.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. 1983. Development of recommended energy and protein allowances for growing pigs. Agricultural Systems 11: 159–186.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. 1986. An approach to pig growth modelling. Journal of Animal Science 63: 615–621.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. and Fawcett, R. H. 1976. Theoretical aspects of a flexible model to simulate protein and lipid growth in pigs. Animal Production 22: 87–96.Google Scholar