Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 243

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genetic parameters for residual feed intake in growing pigs, with emphasis on genetic relationships with carcass and meat quality traits

Gilbert, H., Bidanel, J.-P., Gruand, J., Caritez, J.-C., Billon, Y., Guillouet, P., Lagant, H., Noblet, J., Sellier, P.·2007·Journal of Animal Science

Abstract

Data were collected over the first 4 generations of a divergent selection experiment for residual feed intake of Large White pigs having ad libitum access to feed. This data set was used to obtain estimates of heritability for residual feed intake and genetic correlations (r(a)) between this trait and growth, carcass, and meat quality traits. Individual feed intake of group-housed animals was measured by single-space electronic feeders. Upward and downward selection lines were maintained contemporarily, with 6 boars and 35 to 40 sows per line and generation. Numbers of records were 793 for residual feed intake (RFI1) of boar candidates for selection issued from first-parity (P1) litters and tested over a fixed BW range (35 to 95 kg) and 657 for residual feed intake (RFI2) and growth, carcass, and meat quality traits of castrated males and females issued from second-parity (P2) litters and tested from 28 to 107 kg of BW. Variance and covariance components were estimated using REML methodology applied to a series of multitrait animal models, which always included the criterion for selection as 1 of the traits. Estimates of heritability for RFI1 and RFI2 were 0.14 +/- 0.03 and 0.24 +/- 0.03, respectively, whereas the estimate of r(a) between the 2 traits was 0.91 +/- 0.08. Estimates of r(a) indicated that selection for low residual feed intake has the potential to improve feed conversion ratio and reduce daily feed intake, with minimal correlated effect for ADG of P2 animals. Estimates of r(a) between RFI2 and body composition traits of P2 animals were positive for traits related to the amount of fat depots (r(a) = 0.44 +/- 0.16 for carcass backfat thickness) and negative for carcass lean meat content (r(a) = -0.55 +/- 0.14). There was a tendency for a negative genetic correlation between RFI2 and carcass dressing percent (r(a) = -0.36 +/- 0.21). Moreover, selection for low residual feed intake is expected, through lower ultimate pH and lighter color, to decrease pork quality (r(a) = 0.77 +/- 0.14 between RFI2 and a meat quality index intended to predict the ratio of the weight of ham after curing and cooking to the weight of defatted and boneless fresh ham).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2527/jas.2006-590

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 243

Metadata

Authors
Gilbert, H., Bidanel, J.-P., Gruand, J., Caritez, J.-C., Billon, Y., Guillouet, P., Lagant, H., Noblet, J., & Sellier, P.
Venue
Journal of Animal Science
Published
2007-12-01
Volume
85
Issue
12
Pages
3182-3188
ISSN
  • 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-3163
OpenAlex
W2029494914
Cited by
243
References
1
FWCI
4.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Genetic parameters for residual feed intake in growing pigs, with emphasis on genetic relationships with carcass and meat quality traits. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2527/jas.2006-590
The paper
Gilbert, H., Bidanel, J.-P., Gruand, J., Caritez, J.-C., Billon, Y., Guillouet, P., Lagant, H., Noblet, J., & Sellier, P. (2007). Genetic parameters for residual feed intake in growing pigs, with emphasis on genetic relationships with carcass and meat quality traits. Journal of Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-590

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.