Growth and carcass characteristics of pigs selected for fast or slow gain in relation to feed intake and efficiency. |
| |
| Authors: | M D Woltmann A C Clutter D S Buchanan H G Dolezal |
| |
| Institution: | Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Stillwater 74078. |
| |
| Abstract: | Selection in pigs for either fast (line F) or slow (line S) postweaning gain was replicated in spring (SREP) and fall (FREP) farrowing groups. Littermate barrows were sampled from F and S during Generations 2, 3, and 4 of the SREP and Generation 3 of the FREP. Beginning at approximately 35 kg (OTWT), barrows were either allowed ad libitum access to feed (AL) or limited to a standard total feed intake (LIM). Blocks of the line x intake level factorial were removed from test and carcass data collected when the average weight of barrows in the block was approximately 110 kg. Carcass data were also collected on an additional barrow from each litter at OTWT to allow estimation of lean tissue gain per unit of feed consumed (LTFC) of tested barrows. In Generations 3 and 4 of the SREP, F-AL was greater (P less than .01) than S-AL for average daily intake and ADG; carcass backfat was greater (P less than .01) but LTFC tended to be less (P less than .10) for F-AL than for S-AL. When LIM was imposed in the SREP, F barrows gained faster (P less than .05) than S barrows in Generation 4, but across generation the lines did not differ for carcass backfat and LTFC was greater (P less than .01) for F than for S. In the FREP, F-AL was greater (P less than .05) than S-AL for average daily intake and ADG and was less (P less than .05) for LTFC, but F and S did not differ for these traits when LIM was imposed; carcass backfat of F was greater (P less than .01) than that of S by .46 cm under AL and .38 cm under LIM. Most of the response in ADG could be attributed to changes in intake, but results in Generation 4 of the SREP indicated that changes in efficiency had also contributed. Most of the additional intake in F vs S resulted in deposition of fat, probably due in part to the heavier weight of F-AL vs S-AL barrows. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
