Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T06:02:32.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feeding patterns, growth performance and carcass traits in group-housed growing-finishing pigs: the effect of terminal sire line, halothane genotype and age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

E. Fàbrega ,
J. Tibau ,
J. Soler ,
J. Fernández ,
J. Font ,
D. Carrión ,
A. Diestre  and
X. Manteca
E. Fàbrega
Affiliation:
Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries, Centre de Tecnologia de la Carn, Granja Camps i Armet, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain
J. Tibau
Affiliation:
Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries, Centre de Control Porcí, Veïnat de Sies, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain
J. Soler
Affiliation:
Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries, Centre de Control Porcí, Veïnat de Sies, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain
J. Fernández
Affiliation:
Unitat de Fisiologia Animal, Facultat de Veterinària, Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
J. Font
Affiliation:
Pinsos Baucells, Crta Barcelona-Puigcerdà, Km 60, 08551 Tona, Barcelona, Spain
D. Carrión
Affiliation:
Pig Improvement Company Europe, Avda. Ragull, 80 2on, 08190 Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain
A. Diestre
Affiliation:
Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries, Centre de Tecnologia de la Carn, Granja Camps i Armet, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain
X. Manteca*
Affiliation:
Unitat de Fisiologia Animal, Facultat de Veterinària, Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
*
†Corresponding author. E-mail:Xavier.manteca@uab.es
Get access

Abstract

The effects of terminal sire line, halothane genotype and age on feeding patterns and growth performance were studied in 208 castrated growing-finishing pigs distributed in two batches. In batch 1 (no. = 130), pigs came from crosses of NN Landrace × Large White sows with a Pietrain Nn (Pi-Nn) or a Large White × Pietrain Nn terminal sire line (LwPi-Nn). In batch 2 (no. = 78), the same sows were used but crossed with three different terminal sire lines : a Pietrain nn (Pi-nn), and two Pietrain NN (Pi-NNa and Pi-NNb). Growth performance and feeding patterns of the progeny (Nn or NN for the halothane gene) were measured from 67 to 166 days of age. Pigs were housed in groups of 10 and 13 individuals in Batch 1 and 2, respectively, with a random mixed-breed and halothane genotype sample in each group (space allowance 1·3 m2 per pig and 1·1 m2 per pig, respectively). Feeding patterns were monitored with a computerized food intake recording system (IVOG®-station) and every 3 weeks pigs were weighed and backfat and loin-muscle depth were ultrasonically recorded (PIGLOG®). Carcass quality was assessed with the Fat-o-Meater grading probe. In batch 1, halothane genotype did not have a significant effect on any of the feeding patterns recorded, but Nn individuals had a significantly higher body weight (P <0·05), loin-muscle depth (P <0·05) and lower backfat thickness (P <0·01) in the last measurement taken, 3/4 carcass loin depth (P <0·05) and lower carcass last rib backfat (P <0·05) than NN pigs. Terminal sire line had a significant effect on all feeding patterns recorded except for feeding rate, Pi-Nn sired pigs showing a significantly higher food intake per visit (P <0·05) and feeder occupation time per visit (P <0·05) and lower number of visits (P <0·001) compared with LwPi-Nn sired pigs which, in turn, showed significantly higher food intake per day (P <0·001) and feeder occupation time per day (P <0·01). Terminal sire also affected growth performance and body composition, Pi-Nn sired pigs having a significantly lower body weight (P <0·001) and backfat thickness (P <0·001) but higher killing-out proportion and 3/4 loin depth (P <0·01) than LwPi-Nn sired pigs. In batch 2, Pi-NNb sired pigs showed a significantly lower food intake per day compared with the progeny of the other two terminal sires lines at some of the age measurements taken (P <0·05). The rest of the feeding patterns was not affected by terminal sire line. Body and carcass weights were also significantly lower (P <0·01) for Pi-NNb sired pigs, but their killing-out proportion was higher than Pi-NNa sired pigs. With regard to these variables, Pi-nn sired pigs held an intermediate position between the two NN terminal sire lines. In both batches, age was associated with a significant increase in food intake per visit and per day and feeding rate (P <0·001) and a decrease in feeder occupation time per visit and per day and frequency of visits to the feeder (P <0·001). Overall, the present results suggest differences between terminal sire lines for feeding patterns and confirm their evolution with age from short and frequent meals to long and larger ones in growing-finishing pigs. Under our conditions, the effects of terminal sire line on feeding patterns and growth performance surpassed those of the halothane genotype.

Keywords

carcass compositionfeeding habitsgenotypegrowth ratepigs
Type
Growth, development and meat science
Information
Animal Science , Volume 77 , Issue 1 , August 2003 , pp. 11 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2003

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

Augspurger, N. R., Ellis, M., Hamilton, D. N., Wolter, B. F., Beverly, J. L. and Wilson, E.R. 2002. The effect of sire line on the feeding patterns of grow-finish pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton-Gade, P. A., Chrystall, B. B., Kirton, A. H., Longdill, G. R., Cross, H. R. and Jesperson, M. 1988. Slaughter procedures for pigs, sheep, cattle and poultry. In Meat science, milk science and technology (ed. Cross, H. R. and Overby, A. J.), pp. 33–44. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bigelow, J. A. and Houpt, T.R. 1988. Feeding and drinking patterns in young pigs. Physiology and Behavior 43: 99–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornett, H. L. I., Morgan, C.A., Lawrence, A.B. and Mann, J. 2000. The effect of group housing on feeding patterns and social behaviour of previously individually housed growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70: 127–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernández, J. 2001. Descripción del comportamiento alimentario en cuatro razas porcinas y estudio de su relación con la productividad, el gen del halothano y la jerarquía social. Ph. D. thesis, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Fuji, J., Otsu, K., Zorzato, F., De Leon, S., Khanna, V. K., Weiler, J. E., O’Brien, P. J. and MacLennan, D.H. 1991. Idenfication of a mutation in porcine ryanodine receptor associated with malignant hyperthermia. Science 253: 448–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gispert, M. and Diestre, A. 1994. Classement des carcasses de porc en Espagne: un pas vers l’harmonisation communautaire. Techni-Porc 17: 29–32.Google Scholar
Haer, L. C. M. de and J.W.M., Merks 1992. Patterns of daily food intake in growing pigs. Animal Production 54: 95–104.Google Scholar
Haer, L. C. M. de and Vries, A.G. de. 1993. Effects of genotype and sex on the feed intake pattern of group-housed growing pigs. Livestock Production Science 36: 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, O. M., Newton, G.L. and Haydon, K.D. 1986. Effect of diet and exercise on performance, carcass traits and plasma components of growing-finishing barrows. Journal of Animal Science 62: 665–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, A. N. and Smith, W.C. 1977. A note on purebred performance of Belgian Pietrain pigs. Animal Production 28: 97–108.Google Scholar
Hyun, Y., Ellis, M., McKeith, F. K. and Wilson, E.R. 1997. Feed intake pattern of group-housed growing-finishing pigs monitored using a computerized feed intake recording system. Journal of Animal Science 75: 1443–1451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanis, E. and Koops, W.J. 1990. Daily gain, food intake and food efficiency in pigs during the growing period. Animal Production 50: 353–364.Google Scholar
Labroue, F., Gueblez, R. and Meunier-Salaun, M. C. 1999. Feed intake behaviour of group-housed Pietrain and Large White growing pigs. Annales de Zootechnie 48: 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labroue, F., Gueblez, R., Sellier, P. and Meunier-Salaun, M. C. 1994. Feeding behaviour of group-housed Large White and Landrace pigs in French central test stations. Livestock Production Science 40: 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larzul, C., Le Roy, P., Guéblez, R., Talmant, A., Gogué, J., Sellier, P. and Monin, G. 1997. Effect of halothane genotype (NN, Nn, nn) on growth, carcass and meat quality traits of pigs slaughtered at 95 kg or 125 kg live weight. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 114: 309–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leach, M., Ellis, M., Sutton, D. S., Mckeith, F. K. and Wilson, E.R. 1996. The growth performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of halothane carrier and negative pigs. Journal of Animal Science 74: 934–943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McPhee, C. P., Daniels, L. J., Kramer, H. L., Macbeth, G. M. and Noble, J.W. 1994. The effects of selection for lean growth and halothane allele on growth performance and mortality of pigs in a tropical environment. Livestock Production Science 38: 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, B. L. 1999. On the interpretation of feeding behaviour measures and the use of feeding rate as an indicator of social constraint. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63: 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, B. L., Lawrence, A.B. and Whittemore, C.T. 1995. Effect of group size on feeding behaviour, social behaviour, and performance of growing pigs using single-space feeders. Livestock Production Science 44: 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nienaber, J. A., McDonald, T.P., Hahn, G.L. and Chen, Y.R. 1990. Eating dynamics of growing-finishing swine. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 33: 2011–2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiniou, N., Dubois, S., Le Cozler, Y., Bernier, J. F. and Noblet, J. 1999. Effect of growth potential (body weight and breed/castration combination) on the feeding behaviour of individually kept growing pigs. Livestock Production Science 61: 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiniou, N., Dubois, S. and Noblet, J. 2000. Voluntary feed intake and feeding behaviour of group-housed growing pigs are affected by ambient temperature and body weight. Livestock Production Science 63: 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellier, P. 1987. Crossbreeding and meat quality in pigs. In Evaluation and control of meat quality in pigs (ed. Tarrant, P. V., Eikelenboom, G. and Monin, G.), pp. 17–26. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Smet, S. de, Bloemen, H., Voorde, G. van de, Spincemaille, G. and Berckmans, D. 1998. Meat and carcass quality in two pig lines of different stress-susceptibility genotype and their crosses. Animal Science 66: 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. C., Ellis, M., Chadwick, J. P. and Laird, R. 1991. The influence of index selection for improved growth and carcass characteristics on appetite in a population of Large White pigs. Animal Production 52: 193–199.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1999-2000. SAS for windows release 8e. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Tor, M., Estany, J., Villalba, D., Cubiló, D., Tibau, J., Soler, J., Sánchez, A. and Noguera, J.L. 2001. A within-breed comparison of RYR1 genotypes for performance, feeding behaviour, and carcass, meat and fat quality traits. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 118: 357–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vries, A. G. de, Faucitano, L., Sosnicki, A. and Plastow, G.S. 2000. The use of gene technology for optimal development of pork meat quality. Food Chemistry 69: 397–405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, A. J., Carden, A.E., Smith, C. and Imlah, P. 1982. Porcine stress syndrome in pig breeding. Proceedings of the second world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Madrid, Spain, vol. 5, pp. 588–608.Google Scholar
Young, R. J. and Lawrence, A.B. 1994. Feeding behaviour of pigs in groups monitored by a computerized feeding system. Animal Production 58: 145–152.Google Scholar