021 Divergent selection for residual feed intake alters pig behavioral reactivity to novel stimuli tests

2016 ◽  
Vol 94 (suppl_2) ◽  
pp. 10-10
Author(s):  
J. D. Colpoys ◽  
N. K. Gabler ◽  
S. T. Millman ◽  
A. K. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Feed Intake ◽  
Residual Feed Intake ◽  
Divergent Selection ◽  
Selection For ◽  
Behavioral Reactivity

230 Effect of divergent selection for residual feed intake on whole body protein turnover in growing gilts fed either adequate or lysine deficient diets

2016 ◽  
Vol 94 (suppl_2) ◽  
pp. 108-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. J. Hewitt ◽  
C. F. M. de Lange ◽  
T. Antonick ◽  
J. C. M. Dekkers ◽  
A. R. Pendleton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Feed Intake ◽  
Protein Turnover ◽  
Residual Feed Intake ◽  
Divergent Selection ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Body Protein ◽  
Selection For

scholarly journals Meat quality and the calpain system of feedlot steers following a single generation of divergent selection for residual feed intake

2001 ◽  
Vol 41 (7) ◽  
pp. 1013 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. B. McDonagh ◽  
R. M. Herd ◽  
E. C. Richardson ◽  
V. H. Oddy ◽  
J. A. Archer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Feed Intake ◽  
Shear Force ◽  
High Efficiency ◽  
Subcutaneous Fat ◽  
Residual Feed Intake ◽  
Divergent Selection ◽  
Muscle Area ◽  
Eye Muscle ◽  
Single Generation ◽  
Selection For

Residual feed intake (RFI) is calculated as the difference between an animal’s actual feed intake and its expected feed intake based on its size and growth over a specified test period. Following a single generation of divergent selection for postweaning RFI, Angus steers and Angus × Hereford, Angus×Poll Hereford and Angus × Shorthorn crossbred steers born in 1996 and 1997 were fed in a feedlot. Cohorts of steers were slaughtered at the same age and had attained similar (P&gt;0.05) final liveweights: 467 kg for steers selected for low RFI (high efficiency; HE, n = 91) and 459 kg for steers selected for high RFI (low efficiency; LE, n = 98). The HE and LE steers had similar (P>0.05) carcass weight (247 and 244 kg), dressing percentage (53.1 and 53.2&percnt;) and eye-muscle area (58.9 and 60.3 cm 2 ). The HE steers had slightly less subcutaneous fat over the rib than the LE steers (9.2 v. 10.1 mm, P&lt;0.05), and there was a trend towards less fat over the rump of HE steers (11.5 v. 12.1 mm, P = 0.10). For meat samples taken from the M. longissimus dorsi (LD) there were no differences (P>0.05) between the HE and LE steers in content of intramuscular fat (5.4 and 5.3% fresh weight), marbling scores, meat colour and fat colour. There were also no differences (P>0.05) between HE and LE steers in shear force and compression values for samples of LD aged for 1 day (4.6 and 4.6 kg shear force, 1.45 and 1.44 kg compression), or for 14 days (3.8 and 3.5 kg, 1.36 and 1.32 kg). Myofibril fragmentation index (MFI) measures the breakdown of these structural elements which occurs as an initial step in the process of protein degradation and meat tenderisation. MFI was lower (i.e. less fragmentation; P<0.05) in LD samples from HE steers than from LE steers, both in samples aged for 1 day (67.7 v. 72.5 units) and in samples aged for 14 days (87.8 v. 91.1 units). The rate of decline in MFI between 1 and 14 days post slaughter was similar in the LD samples from both lines of steers. There were no differences (P>0.05) between HE and LE steers in the activity of m-calpain and &micro;-calpain in LD immediately after slaughter (HE steers: 1.9 and 2.3 units, LE steers: 1.8 and 2.1 units). The level of calpastatin in LD from the HE steers was 13% higher than in the LD from the LE steers (5.2 and 4.6 units respectively, P<0.05). Rate of myofibril fragmentation was positively correlated (P<0.01) with the ratios of both m-calpain and µ-calpain to calpastatin, but not (P>0.10) with levels of either calpain or calpastatin. A single generation of divergent selection for RFI produced differences in calpastatin and myofibril fragmentation that may, with on-going selection for low RFI, negatively affect meat tenderness.

scholarly journals Review: divergent selection for residual feed intake in the growing pig

animal ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1427-1439 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Gilbert ◽  
Y. Billon ◽  
L. Brossard ◽  
J. Faure ◽  
P. Gatellier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Feed Intake ◽  
Residual Feed Intake ◽  
Divergent Selection ◽  
Growing Pig ◽  
Selection For

scholarly journals Effect of immune system stimulation and divergent selection for residual feed intake on digestive capacity of the small intestine in growing pigs1

2012 ◽  
Vol 90 (suppl_4) ◽  
pp. 233-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Rakhshandeh ◽  
J. C. M. Dekkers ◽  
B. J. Kerr ◽  
T. E. Weber ◽  
J. English ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Small Intestine ◽  
Immune System ◽  
Feed Intake ◽  
Residual Feed Intake ◽  
Divergent Selection ◽  
Digestive Capacity ◽  
Selection For

scholarly journals Effects of genetic selection for residual feed intake on behavioral reactivity of castrated male pigs to novel stimuli tests

2014 ◽  
Vol 159 ◽  
pp. 34-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica D. Colpoys ◽  
Caitlyn E. Abell ◽  
Jennifer M. Young ◽  
Aileen F. Keating ◽  
Nicholas K. Gabler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Feed Intake ◽  
Genetic Selection ◽  
Residual Feed Intake ◽  
Selection For ◽  
Behavioral Reactivity

Consequences of divergent selection for residual feed intake in pigs on muscle energy metabolism and meat quality

Meat Science ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Faure ◽  
L. Lefaucheur ◽  
N. Bonhomme ◽  
P. Ecolan ◽  
K. Meteau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Energy Metabolism ◽  
Meat Quality ◽  
Feed Intake ◽  
Residual Feed Intake ◽  
Divergent Selection ◽  
Muscle Energy ◽  
Selection For ◽  
Muscle Energy Metabolism

scholarly journals Divergent Selection for Residual Feed Intake Impacts Carcass Composition of Pigs on High or Low Energy Diets

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Arkfield ◽  
Emily Hamman ◽  
Jordy E. Berger ◽  
Roger Johnson ◽  
Jennifer Young ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Feed Intake ◽  
Residual Feed Intake ◽  
Divergent Selection ◽  
Carcass Composition ◽  
Low Energy ◽  
Selection For
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document