Divergent selection for residual feed intake in group-housed growing pigs: Characteristics of physical and behavioural activity according to line and sex

Animal

Volumn 8, Issue 11, 2014, Pages 1898-1906

  Meunier Salaun M C ^a   Guerin C ^a   Billon, Y ^b   Sellier, P ^c   Noblet, J ^a   Gilbert, H ^c,d  

^a PEGASE   (France)

^b CEMAGREF   (France)

^c UMR1313 GÉNÉTIQUE ANIMALE ET BIOLOGIE INTÉGRATIVE   (France)

^d UMR1388 GenPhySE   (France)

Author keywords

Behaviour; Genetic; Physical activity; Pig; Residual feed intake

Indexed keywords

SUIDAE;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ENERGY METABOLISM; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PIG; PROCEDURES; SEX DIFFERENCE;

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ANIMALS; ENERGY METABOLISM; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; MALE; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEX FACTORS; SUS SCROFA;

EID: 84914678499     PISSN: 17517311     EISSN: 1751732X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1751731114001839     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Arthur PF, Barchia IM and Giles LR 2008. Optimum duration of performance tests for evaluating growing pigs for growth and feed efficiency traits. Journal of Animal Science 86, 1096-1105.
2. Augspurger NR, Ellis M, Hamilton DN, Wolter BF, Beverly JL and Wilson ER 2002. The effect of sire line on the feeding patterns of grow-finish pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 103-114.
3. Barea R, Dubois S, Gilbert H, Sellier P, van Milgen J and Noblet J 2010. Energy utilization in pigs selected for high and low residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 88, 2062-2072.
4. Bryant KL, Kornegay ET, Knight JW, Webb KE Jr and Notter D 1985. Supplemental biotin for swine. I. Influence on feedlot performance, plasma biotin and toe lesions in developing gilts. Journal of Animal Science 60, 136-144.
5. Courboulay V 2004. Comment l'apport d'objets manipulables en hauteur ou au sol influence-t-il l'activité des porcs charcutiers logés sur caillebotis intégral? Journées Recherche Porcine 36, 389-394.
6. De Haer LCM and Merks JWM 1992. Patterns of daily food intake in growing pigs. Animal Production 54, 95-104.
7. De Haer LCM, Luiting P and Aarts HLM 1993. Relations among individual (residual) feed intake, growth performance and feed intake pattern of growing pigs in group housing. Livestock Production Science 36, 233-253.
8. Delumeau O and Meunier-Salaün MC 1995. Effect of early trough familiarity on the creep feeding behaviour in suckling piglets and after weaning. Behavioural Processes 34, 185-195.
9. EFSA 2007. Scientific opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. EFSA Journal 564, 1-14.
10. Faure J, Lefaucheur L, Bonhomme N, Ecolan P, Meteau K, Coustard SM, Kouba M, Gilbert H and Lebret B 2013. Consequences of divergent selection for residual feed intake in pigs on muscle energy metabolism and meat quality. Meat Science 93, 37-45.
11. Flower FC, Sanderson DJ and Weary DM 2005. Hoof pathologies influence kinematic measures of dairy cow gait. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 3166-3173.
12. Gilbert H, Alaïn S, Bidanel JP, Lagant H, Billon Y, Guillouet P, Noblet J and Sellier P 2009. Sélection divergente pour la consommation alimentaire résiduelle chez le porc en croissance: effets corrélatifs sur le comportement alimentaire. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 41, 31-32.
13. Gilbert H, Bidanel JP, Gruand J, Caritez JC, Billon Y, Guillouet P, Lagant H, Noblet J and Sellier P 2007. Genetic parameters for residual intake in growing pig with emphasis on genetic relationships with carcass and meat quality traits. Journal of Animal Science 85, 3182-3188.
14. Harris AJ, Patience JF, Lonergan SM, Dekkers JCM and Gabler NK 2012. Improved nutrient digestibility and retention partially explains feed efficiency gains in pigs selected for low residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 90, 164-166.
15. Herd RM, Oddy VH and Richardson EC 2004. Biological basis for variation in residual feed intake in beef cattle. 1. Review of potential mechanisms. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 423-430.
16. Kirk RK, Jorgensen B and Jensen HE 2008. The impact of elbow and knee joint lesions on abnormal gait and posture of sows. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50, 5.
17. Koch RM, Swiger LA, Chambers D and Gregory KE 1963. Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 22, 486-494.
18. Labroue F, Guéblez R, Sellier P and Meunier-Salaün MC 1994. Feeding behaviour of group-housed Large-White and Landrace pigs in French central test stations. Livestock Production Science 40, 303-312.
19. Le Goff G, Dubois S, Van Milgen J and Noblet J 2002. Influence of dietary fibre level on digestive and metabolic utilisation of energy in growing and finishing pigs. Animal Research 51, 245-259.
20. Lepron E, Bergeron R, Robert S, Faucitano L, Bernier JF and Pomar C 2007. Relationship between residual energy intake and the behaviour of growing pigs from three genetic lines. Livestock Science 111, 104-113.
21. Luiting P, Schrama JM, Vanderhel W and Urff EM 1991. Metabolic differences between White Leghorns selected for high and low residual food-consumption. British Poultry Science 32, 763-782.
22. Lyons CAP, Bruce JM, Fowler VR and English PR 1995. Comparison of productivity and welfare of growing pigs in four intensive systems. Livestock Production Science 43, 265-274.
23. Marchant JN and Broom DM 1996. Effects of dry sow housing conditions on muscle weight and bone strength. Animal Science 62, 105-113.
24. Meunier-Salaün MC, Dourmad JY and Lebret B 2006. Evaluation comparée de deux systèmes d'élevage par la réponse comportementale des porcs à l'introduction d'un nouvel objet dans le milieu de vie. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 38, 415-420.
25. Morrison RS, Johnston LJ and Hilbrands AM 2007. The behaviour, welfare, growth performance and meat quality of pigs housed in a deep-litter, large group housing system compared to a conventional confinement system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103, 12-24.
26. Müller R and Schrader L 2003. A new method to measure behavioural activity levels in dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83, 247-258.
27. Noblet J, Shi XS and Dubois S 1993. Energy cost of standing activity in sows. Livestock Production Science 34, 127-136.
28. Pastell M, Tiusanen J, Hakojärvi M and Hänninen L 2009. A wireless accelerometer system with wavelet analysis for assessing lameness in cattle. Biosystems Engineering 104, 545-551.
29. Perrin WR and Bowland JP 1977. Effects of enforced exercise on the incidence of leg weakness in growing boars. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 57, 245-253.
30. Rauw W, Soler MJ, Tibau J, Reixach J and Gomez Raya L 2006. The relationship between the residual feed intake and feed intake behavior in group-housed Duroc barrows. Journal of Animal Science 84, 956-962.
31. Sadler LJ, Johnson AK, Lonergan SM, Nettleton D and Dekkers JCM 2011. The effect of selection for residual feed intake on general behavioural activity and the occurrence of lesions in Yorkshire gilts. Journal of Animal Science 89, 258-266.
32. Schenck EL, McMunn KA, Rosenstein DS, Stroshine RL, Nielsen BD, Richert BT, Marchant-Forde JN and Lay DC Jr 2008. Exercising stall-housed gestating gilts: effects on lameness, the musculo-skeletal system, production and behaviour. Journal of Animal Science 86, 3166-3180.
33. Scott K, Taylor L, Gill BP and Edwards SA 2006. Influence of different types of environmental enrichment on the behaviour of finishing pigs in two different housing systems: 1 Hanging toy versus rootable substrate. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 222-229.
34. Studnitz M, Jensen MB and Pedersen LJ 2007. Why do pigs root and in what will they root?: a review on the exploratory behaviour of pigs in relation to environmental enrichment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107, 183-197.
35. Taylor NR, Main DCJ, Mendl M and Edwards SA 2010. Tail-biting: a new perspective. Veterinary Journal 186, 137-147.
36. Tribout T and Bidanel JP 2000. Genetic parameters of meat quality traits recorded on Large White and French Landrace station-tested pigs in France. In EAAP Publication No 100: quality of meat and fat in pigs as affected by genetics and nutrition (ed. C Wenk, JA Fernandez and M Dupuis), pp. 37-41. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
37. Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs. Welfare Quality® Consortium. Lelystad, The Netherlands. 114pp.
38. Yazdi MH, Lundeheim N, Rydhmer L, Ringmar-Cederberg E and Johansson K 2000. Survival of Swedish Landrace and Yorkshire sows in reaction to osteochondrosis: a genetic study. Animal Science 71, 1-9.
39. Young JM, Cai W and Dekkers JCM 2011. Effect of residual feed intake on feeding and daily feed intake patterns in Yorkshire swine. Journal of Animal Science 89, 639-647.
40. Zonderland JJ, Bracke MBM, den Hartog LA, Kemp B and Spoolder HAM 2010. Gender effects on tail damage development in single or mixed sex groups of weaned piglets. Livestock Science 129, 151-158.