Daily Feed Intake, Energy Intake, Growth Rate and Measures of Dietary Energy Efficiency of Pigs from Four Sire Lines Fed Diets with High or Low Metabolizable and Net Energy Concentrations

  • Schinckel, A.P. ;
  • Einstein, M.E. ;
  • Jungst, S. ;
  • Matthews, J.O. ;
  • Booher, C. ;
  • Dreadin, T. ;
  • Fralick, C. ;
  • Wilson, E. ;
  • Boyd, R.D.
  • Received : 2011.07.07
  • Accepted : 2011.09.28
  • Published : 2012.03.01


A trial was conducted to: i) evaluate the BW growth, energy intakes and energetic efficiency of pigs fed high and low density diets from 27 to 141 kg BW, ii) evaluate sire line and sex differences when fed both diets, and iii) to compare ME to NE as predictor of pig performance. The experiment had a replicated factorial arrangement of treatments including four sire lines, two sexes (2,192 barrows and 2,280 gilts), two dietary energy densities and a light or heavy target BW, 118 and 131.5 kg in replicates 1 to 6 and 127 and 140.6 kg in replicates 7 to 10. Pigs were allocated to a series of low energy (LE, 3.27 Mcal ME/kg) corn-soybean meal based diets with 16% wheat midds or high energy diets (HE, 3.53 to 3.55 Mcal ME/kg) with 4.5 to 4.95% choice white grease. All diets contained 6% DDGS. The HE and LE diets of each of the four phases were formulated to have equal lysine:Mcal ME ratios. Pigs were weighed and pen feed intake (11 or 12 pigs/pen) recorded at 28-d intervals. The barrow and gilt daily feed (DFI), ME (MEI) and NE (NEI) intake data were fitted to a Bridges function of BW. The BW data of each sex were fitted to a generalized Michaelis-Menten function of days of age. ME and NE required for maintenance (Mcal/d) were predicted using functions of BW (0.255 and 0.179 BW^0.60 respectively). Pigs fed LE diets had decreased ADG (915 vs. 945 g/d, p<0.001) than pigs fed HE diets. Overall, DFI was greater (p<0.001) for pigs fed the LE diets (2.62 vs. 2.45 kg/d). However, no diet differences were observed for MEI (8.76 vs. 8.78 Mcal/d, p = 0.49) or NEI (6.39 vs. 6.44 Mcal/d, p = 0.13), thereby indicating that the pigs compensated for the decreased energy content of the diet. Overall ADG:DFI (0.362 vs. 0.377) and ADG:Mcal MEI (0.109 vs. 0.113) was less (p<0.001) for pigs fed LE compared to HE diets. Pigs fed HE diets had 3.6% greater ADG:Mcal MEI above maintenance and only 1.3% greater ADG:Mcal NEI (0.152 versus 0.150), therefore NEI is a more accurate predictor of growth and G:F than MEI.Pigs fed HE diets had 3.4% greater ADG:Mcal MEI and 0.11% greater ADG:NEI above maintenance than pigs fed LE diets, again demonstrating that NEI is a better predictor of pig performance than MEI. Pigs fed LE diets had similar daily NEI and MEI but grew slower and less efficiently on both ME and NE basis than pigs fed HE diets. The data suggest that the midds NE value (2.132 Mcal/kg) was too high for this source or that maintenance was increased for pigs fed LE diets.


Pig;Growth Performance;Feed Efficiency;Dietary Energy


  1. Birkett, S. and K. de Lange. 2001a. A computational framework for a nutrient flow representation of energy utilization by growing monogastric animals. Br. J. Nutr. 86:661-674.
  2. Birkett, S. an K. de Lange. 2001b. Calibration of a nutrient flow model of energy utilization by growing pigs. Br. J. Nutr. 96: 675-689.
  3. Boyd, R. D., C. E. Zier-Rush.and C. E. Fralick. 2011. Practical method for productive energy (NEm+g) estimation of soybean meal for growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. (abstr., in press).
  4. Boyd, R. D., C. E. Zier-Rush and C. E. Fralick. 2010. Practical method for estimating productive energy (NE) of wheat midds for growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 88(E Suppl. 3):89(abstr.).
  5. Bridges, T. C., U. W. Turner, E. M. Smith, T. S. Stahly and O. J. Loewer. 1986. A mathematical procedure for estimating animal growth and body composition. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 29:1342-1347.
  6. Craig, B. A. and A. P. Schinckel. 2001. Nonlinear mixed effects model for swine growth. Prof. Anim. Sci. 17:256-260.
  7. DeDecker, J. M., M. Ellis, B. F. Wolter, B. P. Corrigan, S. E. Curtis, E. N. Parr and D. M. Webel. 2005. Effects of proportion of pigs removed from a group and subsequent floor space on growth performance of finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 83:449-454.
  8. De la Llata, M., S. S. Dritz, M. D. Tokach, R. D. Goodband, J. L. Nelssen and T. M. Loughin. 2001. Effects of dietary fat on growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing-finishing pigs reared in a commercial environment. J. Anim. Sci. 79:2643-2650.
  9. De la Llata, M., S. S. Dritz, M. D. Tokach, R. D. Goodband and L. L. Nelssen. 2007. Effects of increasing lysine to calorie ratio and added fat for growing-finishing pigs reared in a commercial environment: I. Growth performance and carcass characteristics. Professional Animal Scientist 23:417-428.
  10. de Lange, C. F. M. and H. W. E. Schreurs. 1995. Principles of model application. In Modelling Growth in the Pig, EAAP publication. 78:187-208.
  11. FASS. 2010. Guide for the care and use of agricultural animals in research and teaching. Third edition. Fed. Anim. Sci. Soc. Champaign, IL.
  12. Gonyou, H. W., M. C. Brumm, E. Bush, J. Deen, S. A. Edwards, T. Fangman, J. J. McGlone, M. Meunier-Salaun, R. B. Morrison, H. Spoolder, P. L. Sundberg and A. K. Johnson. 2006. Application of broken-line analysis to assess floor space requirements of nursery and grower-finisher pigs expressed on an allometric basis. J. Anim. Sci. 84:229-235.
  13. Hamilton, D. N., M. Ellis, B. F. Wolter, A. P. Schinckel and E. R. Wilson. 2003. The growth performance of the progeny of two swine sire lines reared under different floor space allowances. J. Anim. Sci. 81:1126-1135.
  14. Krick, B. J. , K. R. Roneker, R. D. Boyd, D. H. Beermann, P. J. David and D. J. Meisinger. 1992. Influence of genotype and sex on the response of growing pigs to recombinant porcine somatotropin. J. Anim. Sci. 70:3024-3034.
  15. Lopez, S., J. France, W. J. J. Gerrits, M. S. Dhanoa, D. J. Humphries and J. Dijkstra. 2000. A generalized Michaelis-Menten equation for the analysis of growth. J. Anim. Sci. 78: 1816-1828.
  16. Mariscal-Landin, G., B. Seve, Y. Colleaux and Y. Lebreton. 1994. Endogenous amino nitrogen collected from pigs with end-to-end ileorectal anastomosis is affected by the method of estimation and altered by dietary fiber. J. Nutr. 136-146.
  17. Noblet, J., H. Fortune, C. Dupire and S. Dubios. 1993. Digestible, metabolizable and net energy values of 13 feedstuffs for growing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 42:131-149.
  18. Noblet, J., H. Fortune, X. S. Shi and S. Dubios. 1994. Prediction of net energy value of feeds for growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 72: 344-354.
  19. Noblet, J., C. Karege, S. Dubois and J. van Milgen. 1999. Metabolic utilization of energy and maintenance requirements in growing pigs: Effects of sex and genotype. J. Anim. Sci. 77: 1208-1216.
  20. Noblet, J. 2000. Digestive and metabolic utilization of energy in swine: Application to energy evaluation systems. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 17:113-132.
  21. Noblet, J. and J. van Milgen. 2004. Energy value of pig feeds: Effect of pig body weight and energy evaluation system. J. Anim. Sci. 82(E. Suppl.):E229-E238.
  22. NRC. 1998. Nutrient requirements of swine. (10th ed.) Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC, USA.
  23. Nyachoti, C. M., C. F. M. de Lange, B. W. McBride and H. Schulze. 1996. Significance of endogenous gut nitrogen losses in the nutrition of growing pigs: A review. Canadian J. Anim. Sci. 149-163.
  24. Pettigrew, J. E. and R. L. Moser. 1991. Fat in swine nutrition. In: Swine Nutrition ( Ed. E. R. Miller, D. E. Ullrey and A. J. Lewis). pp. 133-146. Butterworth-Heinemann. Stoneham. MA.
  25. Pig Improvement Company. 2008. PIC nutrient specifications. Hendersonville, TN.
  26. Schinckel, A. P. and C. F. M. de Lange. 1996. Characterization of growth parameters needed as inputs for pig growth models. J. Anim. Sci. 74:2021-2036.
  27. Schinckel, A. P., M. E. Einstein, S. Jungst, C. Booher and S. Newman. 2009a. Evaluation of different mixed model nonlinear functions to describe the body weight growth of pigs of different sire and dam lines. Prof. Anim. Sci. 25:307-324.
  28. Schinckel, A. P., M. E. Einstein, S. Jungst, C. Booher and S. Newman. 2009b. Evaluation of different mixed model nonlinear functions to describe the feed intakes of pigs of different sire and dam lines. Prof. Anim. Sci. 25: 345-359.
  29. Schinckel, A. P., M. E. Einstein, S. Jungst, J. O. Matthews, B. Fields, C. Booher, T. Dreadin, C. Fralick, S. Tabor, A. Sosnicki, E. Wilson, R. D. Boyd and S. Newman. 2012. The impact of feeding diets of high or low energy concentration on carcass measurements and the weight of primal and subprimal lean cuts. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. (submitted)
  30. Schinckel, A. P., D. C. Mahan, T. G. Wiseman and M. E. Einstein. 2008. Impact of alternative energy systems on the estimated feed requirements of pigs with varying lean and fat tissue growth rates when fed corn and soybean meal-based diets. Prof. Anim. Sci. 24:198-207.
  31. Weber, T. E., B. T. Richert, M. A., Belury, Y. Gu, K. Enright and A. P. Schinckel. 2006. Evaluation of the effects of dietary fat, conjugated linoleic acid, and ractopamine on growth performance, pork quality, and fatty acid profiles in genetically lean gilts. J. Anim. Sci. 84:720-732.
  32. Whittemore, C. T. 1997. An analysis of methods for the utilisation of net energy concepts to improve the accuracy of feed evaluation in diets for pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 68:89-99.

Cited by

  1. Genetic parameters and expected responses to selection for components of feed efficiency in a Duroc pig line vol.49, pp.1, 2017,
  2. Comparison of growth and efficiency of dietary energy utilization by growing pigs offered feeding programs based on the metabolizable energy or the net energy system1 vol.94, pp.4, 2016,