Interrelationships between sex and dietary lysine on growth performance and carcass composition of finishing boars and gilts.
boars
finishing pig
gilts
lysine
requirements
Journal
Translational animal science
ISSN: 2573-2102
Titre abrégé: Transl Anim Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101738705
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2020
Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
30
04
2020
accepted:
13
07
2020
entrez:
21
8
2020
pubmed:
21
8
2020
medline:
21
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The main goals of this study were to determine whether boars and gilts respond differently to the standardized ileal digestible lysine to net energy ratio (SID Lys:NE) and model the response to optimize growth performance. A total of 780 finishing pigs, 390 boars and 390 gilts [Pietrain NN × (Landrace × Large White)], with an initial individual body weight of 70.4 ± 9.2 for boars and 68.7 ± 8.0 kg for gilts, were used in a 41-d dose-response experiment. Pens (13 pigs per pen) were randomly allocated to a dietary treatment (2.64, 3.05, 3.46, 3.86, 4.27 g SID Lys/Mcal NE) by block and sex, with six replicates per treatment and sex. Two isoenergetic diets (2,460 kcal NE/kg), representing the extreme SID Lys:NE, were formulated and then mixed. Pigs were individually weighed at days 0, 22, and 41, when the experiment finished. The differential effect of SID Lys:NE on growth performance and carcass composition between sexes was analyzed with orthogonal polynomial contrasts to compare the linear and quadratic trends in each sex. In addition, broken-line linear (BLL) models to optimize average daily gain (ADG), including average daily feed intake (ADFI) as a covariate, were fitted when possible. As expected, boars had a greater ADG and feed efficiency (G:F;
Identifiants
pubmed: 32818174
doi: 10.1093/tas/txaa129
pii: txaa129
pmc: PMC7426025
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
txaa129Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.
Références
J Anim Sci. 2013 Mar;91(3):1480-92
pubmed: 23296818
J Anim Sci. 2009 May;87(5):1648-58
pubmed: 19098250
Br J Nutr. 2012 Aug;108 Suppl 2:S113-21
pubmed: 23107522
J Anim Sci. 2008 Sep;86(9):2190-207
pubmed: 18469046
J Anim Sci. 2016 Sep;94(9):3966-3977
pubmed: 27898886
J Anim Sci. 2001 May;79(5):1259-71
pubmed: 11374546
J Anim Sci. 1984 Mar;58(3):657-65
pubmed: 6425258
Animal. 2013 Nov;7(11):1769-78
pubmed: 23931578
J Anim Sci. 2004;82 E-Suppl:E229-238
pubmed: 15471802
J Anim Sci. 2000 Oct;78(10):2639-51
pubmed: 11048930
Br Poult Sci. 2009 Jan;50(1):16-32
pubmed: 19234926
J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2003 Aug;87(7-8):269-79
pubmed: 12864907
Animal. 2017 Aug;11(8):1321-1329
pubmed: 28183364
J Anim Sci. 2017 Mar;95(3):1253-1263
pubmed: 28380505
Meat Sci. 2010 Aug;85(4):664-70
pubmed: 20416805
J Anim Sci. 2011 Nov;89(11):3587-95
pubmed: 21666007
J Anim Sci. 2001 Nov;79(11):2857-65
pubmed: 11768115
Meat Sci. 2013 Sep;95(1):129-36
pubmed: 23688799
Meat Sci. 2014 Dec;98(4):773-80
pubmed: 25134013
Animals (Basel). 2020 Jun 13;10(6):
pubmed: 32545783
J Anim Sci. 2006 Apr;84 Suppl:E155-65
pubmed: 16582088