27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A review of feed efficiency in swine: biology and application

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Feed efficiency represents the cumulative efficiency with which the pig utilizes dietary nutrients for maintenance, lean gain and lipid accretion. It is closely linked with energy metabolism, as the oxidation of carbon-containing components in the feed drive all metabolic processes. While much is known about nutrient utilization and tissue metabolism, blending these subjects into a discussion on feed efficiency has proven to be difficult. For example, while increasing dietary energy concentration will almost certainly increase feed efficiency, the correlation between dietary energy concentration and feed efficiency is surprisingly low. This is likely due to the plethora of non-dietary factors that impact feed efficiency, such as the environment and health as well as individual variation in maintenance requirements, body composition and body weight.

          Nonetheless, a deeper understanding of feed efficiency is critical at many levels. To individual farms, it impacts profitability. To the pork industry, it represents its competitive position against other protein sources. To food economists, it means less demand on global feed resources. There are environmental and other societal implications as well.

          Interestingly, feed efficiency is not always reported simply as a ratio of body weight gain to feed consumed. This review will explain why this arithmetic calculation, as simple as it initially seems, and as universally applied as it is in science and commerce, can often be misleading due to errors inherent in recording of both weight gain and feed intake.

          This review discusses the importance of feed efficiency, the manner in which it can be measured and reported, its basis in biology and approaches to its improvement. It concludes with a summary of findings and recommendations for future efforts.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Nutrient Requirements of Swine : Eleventh Revised Edition

          (2012)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Genetic and statistical properties of residual feed intake.

            Residual feed intake is defined as the difference between actual feed intake and that predicted on the basis of requirements for production and maintenance of body weight. Formulas were developed to obtain genetic parameters of residual feed intake from knowledge of the genetic and phenotypic parameters of the component traits. Genetic parameters of residual feed intake were determined for a range of heritabilities (h2 = .1, .3, or .5) for component traits of feed intake and production, and genetic (rg = .1, .5, or .9) and environmental (re = .1, .5, or .9) correlations between them. Resulting heritability of residual feed intake ranged from .03 to .84 and the genetic correlation between residual feed intake and production ranged from -.90 to .87. Heritability of residual feed intake depends considerably on the environmental correlation between feed intake and production. Residual feed intake based on phenotypic regression of feed intake on production usually contains a genetic component due to production. Residual feed intake based on genotypic regression of feed intake on production is genetically independent of production and its use is equivalent to use of a selection index restricted to hold production constant. Multiple-trait selection on residual feed intake, based on either phenotypic or genetic regressions, and production is equivalent to multiple-trait selection on feed intake and production. Residual energy intake in dairy cattle was examined as an example. Heritability of residual energy intake based on genotypic regression was close to zero and indicated that measurement of feed intake provides little additional genetic information over and above that provided by milk production and body weight. The principles outlined in this study have broader application than just to residual feed intake and apply to any trait that is defined as a linear function of other traits.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Selection response and genetic parameters for residual feed intake in Yorkshire swine.

              Residual feed intake (RFI) is a measure of feed efficiency defined as the difference between the observed feed intake and that predicted from the average requirements for growth and maintenance. The objective of this study was to evaluate the response in a selection experiment consisting of a line selected for low RFI and a random control line and to estimate the genetic parameters for RFI and related production and carcass traits. Beginning with random allocation of purebred Yorkshire littermates, in each generation, electronically measured ADFI, ADG, and ultrasound backfat (BF) were evaluated during a approximately 40- to approximately 115-kg of BW test period on approximately 90 boars from first parity and approximately 90 gilts from second parity sows of the low RFI line. After evaluation of first parity boars, approximately 12 boars and approximately 70 gilts from the low RFI line were selected to produce approximately 50 litters for the next generation. Approximately 30 control line litters were produced by random selection and mating. Selection was on EBV for RFI from an animal model analysis of ADFI, with on-test group and sex (fixed), pen within group and litter (random), and covariates for interactions of on- and off-test BW, on-test age, ADG, and BF with generations. The RFI explained 34% of phenotypic variation in ADFI. After 4 generations of selection, estimates of heritability for RFI, ADFI, ADG, feed efficiency (FE, which is the reciprocal of the feed conversion ratio and equals ADG/ ADFI), and ultrasound-predicted BF, LM area (LMA), and intramuscular fat (IMF) were 0.29, 0.51, 0.42, 0.17, 0.68, 0.57, and 0.28, respectively; predicted responses based on average EBV in the low RFI line were -114, -202, and -39 g/d for RFI (= 0.9 phenotypic SD), ADFI (0.9 SD), and ADG (0.4 SD), respectively, and 1.56% for FE (0.5 SD), -0.37 mm for BF (0.1 SD), 0.35 cm(2) for LMA (0.1 SD), and -0.10% for IMF (0.3 SD). Direct phenotypic comparison of the low RFI and control lines based on 92 low RFI and 76 control gilts from the second parity of generation 4 showed that selection had significantly decreased RFI by 96 g/d (P = 0.002) and ADFI by 165 g/d (P < 0.0001). The low RFI line also had 33 g/d lower ADG (P = 0.022), 1.36% greater FE (P = 0.09), and 1.99 mm less BF (P = 0.013). There was not a significant difference in LMA and other carcass traits, including subjective marbling score, despite a large observed difference in ultrasound-predicted IMF (-1.05% with P < 0.0001). In conclusion, RFI is a heritable trait, and selection for low RFI has significantly decreased the feed required for a given rate of growth and backfat.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                jfp@iastate.edu
                mcrserao@iastate.edu
                nestorgc@iastate.edu
                Journal
                J Anim Sci Biotechnol
                J Anim Sci Biotechnol
                Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1674-9782
                2049-1891
                6 August 2015
                6 August 2015
                2015
                : 6
                : 1
                : 33
                Affiliations
                Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3150 USA
                Article
                31
                10.1186/s40104-015-0031-2
                4527244
                26251721
                258a0d7b-e3b6-4ac1-81a3-5547dcbf4ac1
                © Patience et al. 2015

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 2 September 2014
                : 23 June 2015
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Animal science & Zoology
                caloric efficiency,energy,feed efficiency,residual feed intake,swine
                Animal science & Zoology
                caloric efficiency, energy, feed efficiency, residual feed intake, swine

                Comments

                Comment on this article