Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

A procedure to quantify the feed intake response of growing pigs to perturbations

  • H. Nguyen-Ba (a1) (a2), J. van Milgen (a1) and M. Taghipoor (a3)

Abstract

Improving robustness of farm animals is one of the goals in breeding programmes. However, robustness is a complex trait and not measurable directly. The objective of this study was to quantify and characterize (elements of) robustness in growing pigs. Robustness can be analysed by examining the animal’s response to perturbations. Although the origin of perturbations may not be known, their effect on animal performance can be observed, for example, through changes in voluntary feed intake. A generic model and data analysis procedure was developed (1) to estimate the target trajectory of feed intake, which is the amount of feed that a pig desires to eat when it is not facing any perturbations; (2) to detect potential perturbations, which are deviations of feed intake from the estimated target trajectory; and (3) to characterize and quantify the response of the growing pigs to the perturbations using voluntary feed intake as response criterion. The response of a pig to a perturbation is characterized by four parameters. The start and end times of the perturbation are ‘imposed’ by the perturbing factor, while two other parameters describe the resistance and resilience potential of the pig. One of these describes the immediate reduction in daily feed intake at the start of the perturbation (i.e., a ‘resistance’ trait) while another parameter describes the capacity of the pig to adapt to the perturbation through compensatory feed intake to rejoin the target trajectory of feed intake (i.e., a ‘resilience’ trait). The procedure has been employed successfully to identify the target trajectory of feed intake in growing pigs and to quantify the pig’s response to a perturbation.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      A procedure to quantify the feed intake response of growing pigs to perturbations
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      A procedure to quantify the feed intake response of growing pigs to perturbations
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      A procedure to quantify the feed intake response of growing pigs to perturbations
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

References

Hide All
Bellu, G, Saccomani, MP, Audoly, S and D’Angiò, L 2007. DAISY: a new software tool to test global identifiability of biological and physiological systems. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 88, 5261.
Black, JL 2009. Models to predict feed intake. In Voluntary feed intake in pigs (ed. Torrallardona, D and Roura, E), pp. 323351. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Codrea, MC, Højsgaard, S and Friggens, NC 2011. Differential smoothing of time-series measurements to identify disturbances in performance and quantify animal response characteristics: an example using milk yield profiles in dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 89, 30893098.
Colditz, IG and Hine, BC 2016. Resilience in farm animals: biology, management, breeding and implications for animal welfare. Animal Production Science 56, 19611983.
De Goede, DM, Gremmen, B and Blom-Zandstra, M 2013. Robust agriculture: balancing between vulnerability and stability. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 64, 17.
Friggens, NC, Blanc, F, Berry, DP and Puillet, L 2017. Deciphering animal robustness. A synthesis to facilitate its use in livestock breeding and management. Animal 11, 22372251.
Friggens, NC, Duvaux-Ponter, C, Etienne, MP, Mary-Huard, T and Schmidely, P 2016. Characterizing individual differences in animal responses to a nutritional challenge: toward improved robustness measures. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 27042718.
Guy, SZY, Thomson, PC and Hermesch, S 2012. Selection of pigs for improved coping with health and environmental challenges: breeding for resistance or tolerance? Frontiers in Genetics 3, 281.
Hermesch, S, Li, L, Doeschl-Wilson, AB and Gilbert, H 2015. Selection for productivity and robustness traits in pigs. Animal Production Science 55, 14371447.
Knap, PW 2005. Breeding robust pigs. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45, 763773.
Kyriazakis, I and Emmans, GC 1992. The growth of mammals following a period of nutritional limitation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 156, 485498.
Labroue, F, Guéblez, R, Sellier, P and Meunier-Salaün, MC 1994. Feeding behaviour of group-housed Large White and Landrace pigs in French central test stations. Livestock Production Science 40, 303312.
Le Bellego, L, Van Milgen, J and Noblet, J 2002. Effect of high ambient temperature on protein and lipid deposition and energy utilization in growing pigs. Animal Science 75, 8596.
Muñoz-Tamayo, R, Puillet, L, Daniel, JB, Sauvant, D, Martin, O, Taghipoor, M and Blavy, P 2018. Review: to be or not to be an identifiable model. Is this a relevant question in animal science modelling. Animal 12, 701712.
Munsterhjelm, C, Heinonen, M and Valros, A 2015. Effects of clinical lameness and tail biting lesions on voluntary feed intake in growing pigs. Livestock Science 181, 210219.
National Research Council 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine, 11th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Neethirajan, S 2017. Recent advances in wearable sensors for animal health management. Sensing and Bio-Sensing Research 12, 1529.
Nguyen-Ba, H, Taghipoor, M and Van Milgen, J 2018. Detection and characterization of the feed intake response of growing pigs to perturbations. Book of Abstracts of the 69th Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science, 27–31 August 2018, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 540.
Pastorelli, H, Van Milgen, J, Lovatto, P and Montagne, L 2012. Meta-analysis of feed intake and growth responses of growing pigs after a sanitary challenge. Animal 6, 952961.
Ramsay, JO and Silverman, BW 2007. Applied functional data analysis: methods and case studies. Springer Publishing Company, New York City, NY, USA.
Sadoul, B, Martin, O, Prunet, P and Friggens, NC 2015. On the use of a simple physical system analogy to study robustness features in animal sciences. PloS ONE 10, e0137333.
Sandberg, FB, Emmans, GC and Kyriazakis, I 2006. A model for predicting feed intake of growing animals during exposure to pathogens. Journal of Animal Science 84, 15521566.
Schulin-Zeuthen, M, Kebreab, E, Dijkstra, J, López, S, Bannink, A, Kuhi, HD, Thornley, JHM and France, J 2008. A comparison of the Schumacher with other functions for describing growth in pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 143, 314327.
Van Milgen, J, Valancogne, A, Dubois, S, Dourmad, J-Y, Sève, B and Noblet, J 2008. InraPorc: a model and decision support tool for the nutrition of growing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 143, 387405.
Wallenbeck, A and Keeling, LJ 2013. Using data from electronic feeders on visit frequency and feed consumption to indicate tail biting outbreaks in commercial pig production. Journal of Animal Science 91, 28792884.
Wellock, IJ, Emmans, GC and Kyriazakis, I 2003a. Modelling the effects of thermal environment and dietary composition on pig performance: model testing and evaluation. Animal Science 77, 267276.
Wellock, IJ, Emmans, GC and Kyriazakis, I 2003b. Predicting the consequences of social stressors on pig food intake and performance. Journal of Animal Science 81, 29953007.

Keywords

Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Nguyen-Ba et al. supplementary material
Nguyen-Ba et al. supplementary material 1

 PDF (128 KB)
128 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed