Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T02:10:41.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fat mobilization in Pietrain and Large White pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2007

J. D. Wood ,
N. G. Gregory ,
G. M. Hall  and
D. Lister
J. D. Wood
Affiliation:
ARC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
N. G. Gregory
Affiliation:
ARC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
G. M. Hall
Affiliation:
ARC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
D. Lister
Affiliation:
ARC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Two experiments were done with Pietrain and Large White pigs (about 50 kg body-weight) to determine whether fat mobilization is enhanced in the stress-sensitive Pietrains (which also produce pale, soft, exudative (PSE) meat).

2. In Expt 1, plasma glucose and insulin concentrations and free fatty acid (FFA) concentrations and composition were measured in five Pietrains and five Large Whites after feeding, during an infusion of norepinephrine (2.5 μg/kg body-weight per min), 16 and 21 h after the withdrawal of food and following insulin administration (0.3 IU/kg body-weight). The entry rate of oleic acid was measured 4 h after feeding. Body composition and longissimus dorsi pH measurements were made on killing the pigs 4 d after the experiment.

3. After feeding, the Pietrains tended to have lower concentrations of glucose and insulin in plasma compared with the Large Whites, and higher concentrations of FFA. The Pietrains also had a faster entry rate of oleic acid into body tissues. In fasting (16 h) these differences in hormone and metabolite concentrations were also present and relationships between them and body development could be detected. Pietrains had higher concentrations of FFA and lower concentrations of insulin than Large Whites at a particular stage of the development of fat and muscle (subcutaneous fat weight÷longissimus muscle weight).

4. The fatty acid composition of FFA resembled that of the backfat triglycerides in fasting and during norepinephrine infusion but not in the fed state. In particular the proportion of fatty acid 18:1 was low in the fed pigs and that of 18:2 was high. The contrast in FFA composition between the fed and stimulated state was greater in the Large Whites.

5. The Pietrains were less sensitive to the antilipolytic action of insulin. Glucose and FFA concentrations were similar in both breeds during the norepinephrine infusion although insulin concentrations were increased to a larger extent in the Large Whites at the termination of the infusion.

6. In Expt 2, anaesthetized Pietrain and Large White pigs were given constant infusions of norepinephrine alone (2.5 μg/kg body-weight per min) and norepinephrine+propranolol (2 and 10 μg/kg body-weight per min) or phentolamine (2 and 10 μg/kg body-weight per min). The aim was to determine whether the breeds differed in their sensitivity to norepinephrine when conscious responses to the hormone were prevented.

7. When norepinephrine alone was infused, fat mobilization was greater in the Pietrain pigs and glucose concentrations were greater in the Large Whites. Propranolol markedly reduced the lipolytic action of norepinephrine, particularly in the Pietrain pigs studied, and phentolamine reduced its glycogenolytic action, particularly in the Large White pig.

8. It seems that the leanness of stress-sensitive, PSE-susceptible Pietrain pigs may be due to an enhanced fat mobilization under various conditions, associated with an impairment in insulin metabolism and a greater sensitivity to the β-adrenergic action of catecholamines on body fat stores.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , March 1977 , pp. 167 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1977

References

REFERENCES

Baetz, A. L., Witzel, D. A. & Graham, C. K. (1973). Am. J. vet. Res. 34, 497.Google Scholar
Bakke, H. (1975). Acta Agric. scand. 25, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendall, J. R. & Lawrie, R. A. (1964). Anim. Breed. Abstr. 32, 1.Google Scholar
Bogdonoff, M. D. & Estes, E. H. (1961). Psychosom. Med. 23, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnet, F., Gosselin, L., Chantraine, J. & Senterre, J. (1970). Archs int. Physiol. Biochim. 78, 495.Google Scholar
Borgstrom, B. (1952). Acta physiol. scand. 25, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bray, R. W. (1968). In The Pork Industry: Problems and Progress, p. 136 [Topel, D. G. editor]. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Burns, T. W., Mohs, J. M., Langley, P. E., Yawn, R. & Chase, R. G. (1974). J. clin. Invest. 53, 338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerceo, E. (1974). Lab. Pract. 23, 625.Google Scholar
Cunningham, H. M. & Friend, D. W. (1965). J. Anim. Sci. 24, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dole, V. P. & Meinertz, H. (1960). J. biol. Chem. 235, 2595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncombe, W. G. (1963). Biochem, J. 88, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fain, J. N. (1973). Pharmac. Rev. 25, 67.Google Scholar
Fleming, W. W. & Kenny, A. D. (1964). Br. J. Pharmac. Chemother. 22, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, B. M. & Manning, A. C. C. (1975). Br. Poult. Sci. 16, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, C. P., Noakes, D. E. & Annison, E. F. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertelendy, F., Machlin, L. J., Gordon, R. S., Horino, M. & Kipnis, D. M. (1966). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 121, 675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himms-Hagen, J. (1967). Pharmac Rev. 19, 367.Google Scholar
Ho, R. J. (1970). Analyt. Biochem. 36, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P., Craig, H. B. & Robison, O. W. (1967). J. Anim. Sci. 26, 1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, A. (1970). Analyt. Biochem. 33, 218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurell, S. (1957). Acta physiol. scand. 41, 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lean, I. J., Curran, M. K., Duckworth, J. E. & Holmes, W. (1972). Anim. Prod, 15, 1.Google Scholar
Leat, W. M. F. & Ford, E. J. H. (1966). Biochem. J. 101, 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, D., Hall, G. M. & Lucke, J. N. (1975). Br. J. Anaesth. 46, 803.Google Scholar
Lister, D. & Ratcliff, P. W. (1971). Proc. 2nd int. Symp. Condition Meat Quality Pigs, Zeist, p. 139.Google Scholar
Ludvigsen, J. (1955). Beretn. Forsøgslab. nos. 278, 279, 284.Google Scholar
Machlin, L. J., Horino, M., Hertelendy, F. & Kipnis, D. M. (1966). Endocrinology 82, 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marple, D. N., Aberle, E. D., Forrest, J. C., Blake, W. H. & Judge, M. D. (1972). J. Anim. Sci. 35, 576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, D. A., Wright, P. H. & Ashmore, J. (1969). Pharmac. Rev. 21, 183.Google Scholar
Mersmann, H. J., Brown, L. J., Underwood, M. C. & Stanton, H. C. (1974). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 47B, 263.Google Scholar
Mersmann, H. J., Phinney, G. & Brown, L. J. (1975). Gen Pharmac. 6, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riis, P. M. & Grummer, R. H. (1969). Acta Agric. scand. 19, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, R. P. & Porte, D. Jr (1973). Diabetes 22, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapira, J. D., Lipman, R. & Shapiro, A. P. (1965). Psychosom. Med. 27, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siers, D. G. & Trenkle, A. (1973). J. Anim. Sci. 37, 1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standal, N., Vold, E., Trygstad, O. & Foss, I. (1973). Anim. Prod. 16, 37.Google Scholar
Taggart, P., Carruthers, M. & Somerville, W. (1973). Lancet ii, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trenkle, A. (1970). J. Anim. Sci. 31, 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trout, D. L., Estes, E. H. Jr & Friedberg, S. J. (1960). J. Lipid Res. 1, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. D. (1973). Anim. Prod. 17, 281.Google Scholar
Wood, J. D. (1974). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 33, 61A.Google Scholar
Wood, J. D. & Lister, D. (1973). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 24, 1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziemba, A. W., Kozlowski, S., Nazar, K., Brzezińska, Z. & Kaciuba-Uścilko, H. (1975). Experientia 31, 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar