Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The influence of frequency of feeding on the coefficient of digestibility and metabolizability of dietary energy, fasting heat production, maintenance energy requirements, efficiency of utilization of metabolizable energy (ME) for maintenance and growth, net energy value of diet, rate of lipogenesis in adipose tissue, and the body composition of young pigs was investigated. A total of 40 pigs was used in this study, of which four constituted the initial slaughter group. The remaining 36 pigs were allotted to a feeding experiment of a randomized complete-block design involving a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement (level of dietary energy inputs: 140, 240, and 340 kcal ME/W 0.75 kg daily; and feeding frequency: two and five times daily). One metabolism experiment was conducted during the 3rd wk of the 37-day feeding experiment. Subcutaneous adipose tissue slices taken immediately after electrocution of 24 pigs were used to determine the rate of lipogenesis as indicated by the metabolism of glucose-U- 14 C. Frequency of feeding had no effect on the digestible energy, ME, and NE m value of the diet or the efficiency of utilization of ME for maintenance. However, frequent feeding increased the fasting heat production, metabolizable energy requirement for maintenance, net efficiency of utilization of metabolizable energy for production and the NE g value of the diet. Frequency of feeding did not produce any change in the weights of empty stomach or small intestine. Although the rate of lipogenesis in the adipose tissue was not affected by feeding frequency, lipogenesis was increased by an increase in the level of dietary energy inputs. Feeding frequency did not influence the body composition and energy concentration in the empty body of pigs fed 240 and 340 kcal ME/W 0.75 kg but frequent feeding increased percent water and reduced percent fat in pigs fed 140 kcal ME/W 0.75 kg daily. Several of the latter pigs were in negative energy balance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
SHARMA et al. (1973) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: