Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T00:37:19.850Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of genotype, sex and feeding regimen on pig carcass development: 1. Primary components, tissues and joints

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. G. Evans  and
A. J. Kempster
D. G. Evans
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, P.O. Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK2 2EF
A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, P.O. Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK2 2EF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Dissection data for 1006 pig carcasses taken from the first 2 years of the Meat and Livestock Commission's (MLC) Commercial Pig Evaluation (CPE) were used to examine the relationships between carcass components and carcass weight over the growth period from 46 to 92 kg carcass weight. Alternative models were tested and parameters examined for different genotypes (pigs from different companies in CPE), sexes (barrows and gilts), feeding regimens (ad libitumand restricted feeding) and years.

Generally, linear allometry provided an acceptable description of carcass development, although some curvilinearity was indicated for the head, kidneys, rump back joint, M. psoas and total dissected lean. Growth coefficients conformed to the generally accepted pattern of carcass development in pigs. Using linear allometry, proportional weight increases were comparable for all genotypes and sexes, but dissected fat increased relatively faster on the restricted feeding regimen.

At a constant carcass weight of 66·5 kg, all tissue weights and the weights of primary components and most joints differed by genotype. The ratio of carcass lean weights for the two extreme genotypes was 1·04; comparable ratios for carcass fat weights were 1·13 (restricted-fed pigs) and 1·07 (ad libitum-fed pigs).

Significant differences were recorded between sexes and between feeding regimens, largely reflecting differences in fatness. Some important year differences were also found.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 93 , Issue 2 , October 1979 , pp. 339 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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

Berg, R. T. & Butterfield, B. M. (1976). New Concepts of Cattle Growth. Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A. (1968). PIDA dissection techniques. In Symposium on Methods of Carcass Evaluation. Dublin: European Association of Animal Production.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R. (1976). The nutritional control of growth. In Meat Animals, Growth and Productivity (ed. Lister, D., Rhodes, D. N., Fowler, V. R. and Fuller, M. F.), pp. 285–299. New York and London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R., Bichard, M. & Pease, A. (1976). Objectives in pig breeding. Animal Production 23, 365–378.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R. & Livingstone, R. M. (1972). Modern concepts of growth in pigs. In Pig Production, Proceedings of the Eighteenth Easter School in Agricultural Science, University of Nottingham, 1971, pp. 143–161. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Hopkins, J. W. (1966). Some considerations in multivariate allometry. Biometrics 22, 747–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, J. (1932). Problems in Relative Growth, 1st edn, pp. 4–37. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. (1974). Genotype x environment interactions in pigs. In 1st World Congress on Genetics applied to Livestock Production, Madrid. 1. Plenary Sessions, pp. 837–847.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. & Evans, D. G. (1979). The effects of genotype, sex and feeding regimen on pig carcass development. 2. Tissue weight distribution. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 349–358.Google Scholar
MacFie, H. J. H. (1977). Univariate and multivariate statistical methods – investigation of growth and shape. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bath.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission (1975). Commercial Product Evaluation Report. First year results of eight hybrid companies and populations of purebred and crossbred pigs. Bletchley, Bucks: MLC.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission (1976). Commercial Product Evaluation Report. Second test results, pigs purchased 1973/74. Bletchley, Bucks: MLC.Google Scholar
Reeve, E. C. R. & Huxley, J. S. (1945). In Growth and Form. Essays presented to D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson (ed. Clark, W. E. Le gros and Medawar, P. D.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Richards, F. J. (1959). A flexible growth function for empirical use. Journal of Experimental Botany 10, 290–300.Google Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. (1968). Development studies of body composition. Animal Breeding Abstracts 36, 167–181.Google Scholar
Sprent, P. (1972). The mathematics of size and shape. Biometrics 28, 23–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tulloh, N. M. (1964). The carcass composition of sheep, cattle and pigs as functions of body weight. In Symposium on Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals (ed. Tribe, D. E.), 5–1 to 5–16. Melbourne, Australia: C.S.I.R.OGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. & Fawcett, R. H. (1974). Model responses of the growing pig to the dietary intake of energy and protein. Animal Production 19, 221–231.Google Scholar
Williams, E. J. (1959). Regression Analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar