Review: Feed efficiency and metabolic flexibility in livestock

Abstract

Improving the conversion of feed into product has been a key focus of genetic improvement in all livestock species. Livestock feed efficiency is the amount of product produced per unit of feed intake. Feed efficiency also depends on processes that are not directly related to economically important phenotypes, which can be considered ‘waste’ from a production point of view but are vital maintenance-related functions that are closely associated with environmental flexibility and adaptation. Resource allocation theory suggests that an animal’s resource budget is narrowed when production efficiency is improved through an increase in productive output, along with a decrease in feed intake (capacity) and body reserves (improved leanness). The resulting trade-offs between productivity and vital functions may render the animal less capable of responding to unexpected challenges, potentially leading to negative side effects that are not directly related to economically important phenotypes. However, selection for feed efficiency may not narrow the metabolic space and result in trade-offs if the increase in feed efficiency is the result of increased metabolic flexibility in fuel substrate choice (carbohydrates, lipids, and/or proteins) and other energy-saving strategies. This review evaluates the relationship between metabolic flexibility and feed efficiency during anabolism (growth), fasting, immune activation, general stress, and heat stress, with a focus on pig production. We start with a brief overview of energy processes and substrate metabolism of carbohydrates, lipids, and protein. During muscle metabolism, the type of fuel used depends on fibre type characteristics of the muscle. Selection for improved meat production has resulted in pigs with a greater abundance of fast-twitch fibres with lower energy expenditure and higher metabolic efficiency. Metabolic flexibility for adaptation to disease, and response to regular stress implies that a more reactive immune response and reduced fear response results in higher feed efficiency. The examples presented in this review show that selection for improved feed efficiency does not necessarily narrow the metabolic space and result in trade-offs between productivity and vital functions because of energy−sparing mechanisms.