Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:32:48.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A radiographic study of the development of the skeleton of the foetal pig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. Wenham
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, AB2 9SB
I. McDonald
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, AB2 9SB
F. W. H. Elsley
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, AB2 9SB

Summary

A radiographic study was made of the skeleton of eighty-three foetuses from twenty-four litters killed between the 37th and 112th day of gestation. Measurements were taken, from radiographs, of the length and depth of the skull and the length of the diaphyses of the humerus, radius, ulna, metacarpus, ilium, ischium, femur, tibia, fibula, calcaneum and metatarsus. Skull length, humerus and metatarsus were selected for statistical analysis. The litter mean lengths of the diaphyses were studied in relation to age, weight, and age and weight jointly. Within-litter differences in bone measure-ments were closely associated with foetal weight differences.

The relationships of litter mean log. lengths of the skull, humerus and metatarsus upon age were best fitted by a quadratic regression, and with mean log. foetal weight by linear function regressions. A joint regression incorporating both age and weight of the foetuses fitted the data significantly better than equations based on weight or age alone. Skull length was found to have a growth coefficient between the 51st and 112th day of gestation significantly lower than that of the other bones examined. The age at which the primary and secondary ossification centres appear was studied.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Elsley, F. W. H., Mcdonald, I. & Fowler, V. R. (1964). The effect of plane of nutrition on the carcasses of pigs and lambs when variations in fat content are excluded. Anim. Prod. 6, 141–54.Google Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H., (1965). The physiological development of the young pig. Annls Zootech. 13, 7584.Google Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H., Macpherson, R. M., Ball, S. E. & Pirie, I. M. (1968). Studies on the growth and development of the foetal pig. Anim. Prod. 10, 239 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R. (1968). Body development and some problems of its evaluation. Proc. 14th Easter School, Growth and Development of Mammals, Nottingham, 1968, ed. Lodge, G. A. & Lamming, G. E.. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1944). Physiological factors affecting birth weight. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2, 814.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. (1932). Problems of Relative Growth. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Marrable, A. W., & Ashdown, R. R. (1967). Quantitative observations on pig embryos of known ages. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 69, 443–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskov, M., Boev, P., Krastev, H., Bachnev, D., Markhov, G. & Kowatschev, K. (1967). Beitrag zur Embryometrik des Hausschweins. Arch. Tierz. 10, 487500.Google Scholar
Pálsson, H. (1955). Conformation and body composition. In Progress in Physiology of Farm Animals (ed. Hammond, ), pp. 430–540. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W. (1960). Infertility and neonatal mortality in the sow. III. Neonatal mortality and foetal development. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 54, 3156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon-Legagneub, E. (1968). Prenatal development in the pig and some other multiparous animals. Proc. 14th Easter School, Growth and Development of Mammals, Nottingham 1968, ed. Lodge, G. A. & Lamming, G. E.. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Ullrey, D. E., Sprague, J. I., Becker, D. E. & Miller, E. R. (1965). Growth of the swine foetus. J. Anim. Sci. 24, 711–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, B. L. (1928). Prenatal growth of swine. J. Morph. Physiol. 46, 5984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar