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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Noblet, J., Karege, C., Dubois, S., & van Milgen, J. (1999) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/1999.7751208x · Cited by 248
Self-citation
Cited by
A review of feed efficiency in swine: biology and application
Patience, J. F., Rossoni-Serão, M. C., & Gutiérrez, N. A. (2015) · Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology · doi:10.1186/s40104-015-0031-2 · Cited by 395
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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.