Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-glrdx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T03:27:57.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection in pigs for increased lean growth rate on a time-based feeding scale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. P. McPhee ,
G. A. Rathmell ,
L. J. Daniels  and
N. D. Cameron
C. P. McPhee
Affiliation:
Department of Primary Industries, Animal Research Institute, 665 Fairfield Road, Yeerongpilly, Queensland 4105, Australia
G. A. Rathmell
Affiliation:
Department of Primary Industries, Animal Research Institute, 665 Fairfield Road, Yeerongpilly, Queensland 4105, Australia
L. J. Daniels
Affiliation:
Department of Primary Industries, Animal Research Institute, 665 Fairfield Road, Yeerongpilly, Queensland 4105, Australia
N. D. Cameron
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research, Edinburgh Research Station, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Abstract

Selection was carried out in a line of pigs for increased growth rate of lean tissue. The selection criterion was weight of lean in the ham predicted from live backfat and weight measurements after a 12-week performance test commencing at 25 kg live weight. All pigs were given the same total amount of food over the test period. The scale was set to about proportionately 0·85 of predicted ad libitum intake. Boars selected with an intensity of 1/12 were used for 6 months and sows selected with an intensity of 1/4 were kept for two farrowings. An unselected control line was maintained concurrently.

After five generations, performances of selected and control line pigs were compared on ad libitum and scale feeding as they grew to 85 kg. Responses in the selected line on scale feeding were +51 g/day for growth rate (GR), −0·16 for food conversion ratio (FCR), −2·2 mm for backfat (F) and +0·47 kg for ham lean (HL). On ad libitum feeding, responses were much higher in the selected line, giving rise to line × food interactions. Responses were +128 g/day for GR, −0·27 for FCR, −2·3 mm for F, +1·01 kg for HL and +0·15 kg/day for food intake (FI). Estimates of the heritability of HL from variance components were 0·43 (s.e. 0·15) on scale feeding and 0·28 (s.e. 0·19) on ad libitum feeding. The realized heritability of HL on scale feeding was 0·29 (s.e. 0·04) and its co-heritabilities with the other traits on both feeding levels were of similar magnitude to its heritability. Scale feeding exposed genetic variation in the partitioning of food between lean and fat deposition and appeared to be a suitable selection regimen for performance on ad libitum feeding.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , August 1988 , pp. 149 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1988

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

Adam, J. L. and Smith, W. C. 1966. The use of sample joints in predicting the composition of the pig carcass. Animal Production 8: 85–94.Google Scholar
Cunningham, E. P. 1972. Theory and application of statistical selection methods. Proceedings of the XIV British Poultry Breeders Roundtable, Birmingham.Google Scholar
Davies, J. L. and Lucas, I. A. M. 1972a. Responses to variations in dietary energy intakes by growing pigs. 2. The effects on feed conversion efficiency of changes in level of intake above maintenance. Animal Production 15: 117–125.Google Scholar
Davies, J. L. and Lucas, I. A. M. 1972b. Responses to variations in dietary energy intakes by growing pigs. 3. Effect of level of intake of diets differing in protein and fat content on the performance of growing pigs. Animal Production 15: 127–137.Google Scholar
Eisen, E. J. 1977. Restricted selection index: an approach to selecting for feed efficiency. Journal of Animal Science 44: 958–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, D. G. and Kempster, A. J. 1979. A comparison of different predictors of the lean content of pigs carcasses. 2. Predictors for use in population studies and experiments. Animal Production 28: 97–108.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1981. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 2nd ed. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. and Latyszewski, M. 1952. The environment in relation to selection for size in mice. Journal of Genetics 51: 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, V. R., Bichard, M. and Pease, A. 1976. Objectives in pig breeding. Animal Production 23: 365–387.Google Scholar
Fowler, S. H. and Ensminger, M. E. 1960. Interactions between genotype and plane of nutrition in selection for rate of gain in swine. Journal of Animal Science 19: 434–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowe, R. S., Robertson, A. and Latter, B. D. H. 1959. Environment and poultry breeding problems. 5. The design of poultry control strains. Poultry Science 38: 462–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. 1947. Animal breeding in relation to nutrition and environmental conditions. Biological Reviews 22: 195–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, W. R. 1977. User's guide for LSML 76. Mixed model least-squares and maximum likelihood computer program. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Henderson, R., Whittemore, C. T., Ellis, M., Smith, W. C., Laird, R. and Phillips, D. 1983. Comparative performance and body composition of control and selection line Large White pigs. 1. On a generous fixed feeding scale for a fixed time. Animal Production 36: 399–405.Google Scholar
Hetzel, D. J. S. and Nicholas, F. W. 1986. Growth, efficiency and body composition of mice selected for post-weaning weight gain on ad libitum or restricted feeding. Genetical Research, Cambridge 48: 101–109.Google Scholar
Kielanowski, J. 1968. The method of pig progeny testing applied in Poland. 1. General principles and physiological background. Proceedings of the Meeting of the Sub-Commission on Pig Progeny Testing. 9th Study Meeting of the European Association of Animal Production, Dublin.Google Scholar
McPhee, C. P. 1981. Selection for efficient lean growth in a pig herd. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 32: 681–690.Google Scholar
McPhee, C. P. and Trappett, P. C. 1987. Growth and body composition changes in mice selected for high post-weaning weight gain on two levels of feeding. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 73: 926–931.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McPhee, C. P., Trappett, P. C., Neill, A. R. and Duncalfe, F. 1980. Changes in growth, appetite, food conversion efficiency and body composition in mice selected for high post-weaning weight gain on restricted feeding. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 57: 49–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pullar, J. D. and Webster, A J. F. 1977. The energy cost of fat and protein deposition in the rat. British Journal of Nutrition 37: 355–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, R. 1982. Methods of estimation of genetic parameters. Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Madrid, Vol. 5, pp. 95–103.Google Scholar
Webster, J. F. 1977. Selection for leanness and the energetic efficiency of growth in meat animals. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 36: 53–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamada, Y. 1968. On the realized heritability and genetic correlation estimated from double selection experiments when two characters are measured. Japanese Poultry Science 5: 148–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar