HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cleveland, E. R. Articles by Peo, E. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Cleveland, E. R. Articles by Peo, E. R., Jr.

Index Selection and Feed Intake Restriction in Swine. II. Effect on Energy Utilization¹

University of Nebraska, Lincoln 68583

Abstract

Fifty-three index select and control line barrows were randomly assigned to three feeding levels at 83 d of age. They were slaughtered at approximately 188 d of age to determine the effects of index selection (for increased average daily gain and decreased backfat) and level of feed intake on energy utilization. During the trial, the feed intake levels were twice daily to appetite (AP), once daily feeding of 91% of appetite (AP91) or once daily feeding of 82% of appetite (AP82) intake. The metabolizable energy intake required per kilogram of edible lean deposited (Mcal/kg) was reduced (P>.05) by restricting intake and was lower (P>.01) for index than for control barrows [index: 25.6 (AP), 23.3 (AP91) and 25.3 (AP82) vs control: 31.1 (AP), 27.5 (AP91) and 28.1 (AP82)]. However, intake restriction and index selection increased (P>.05) the energy lost per unit of retained energy (index: 1.33, 1.45 and 1.53 vs control: 1.24, 1.29 and 1.34). The index line had a higher (P>.05) maintenance requirement than the control line when expressed•unit of weight (kg^•75)^–1•day^–1, but the difference was less when expressed·unit of lean (kg^•83)^–1•day^–1. The energy cost of protein deposition varied from 9.02 to 11.25 kcal/g, while the energy cost of fat deposition ranged from 12.73 to 12.86 kcal/g. Variation among animals in metabolizable energy intake was explained by variation in lean mass maintained and the quantity of protein and fat deposited.

¹ Published as Paper No. 6868, Journal Ser., Nebraska Agr. Exp. Sta.

² Present address: Univ. of Georgia, Rural Development Center, Tifton 31793.

³ Anim. Sci. Dept.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. W. Knap, R. Roehe, K. Kolstad, C. Pomar, and P. Luiting Characterization of pig genotypes for growth modeling J Anim Sci, February 1, 2003; 81(14_suppl_2): E187 - 195. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]