Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T02:32:17.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of pig genotypes 2. Testing experimental procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

N. S. Ferguson  and
R. M. Gous
N. S. Ferguson
Affiliation:
Department Animal Science and Poultry Science, University of Natal, PO Box 375, Pietermaritzburg 3200, South Africa
R. M. Gous
Affiliation:
Department Animal Science and Poultry Science, University of Natal, PO Box 375, Pietermaritzburg 3200, South Africa
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was designed to quantify the specific genetic parameters which will describe the growth potential of a pig. The experiment was conducted in two stages. In the early stage, 11 unimproved crossbred pigs were serially slaughtered at 2, 13 and 23 days of age. In the later phase, 16 pigs were serially slaughtered at 80, 90 and 100 kg live weight. The chemical composition of each of the entire empty bodies was determined. Linear regression analyses were performed on body protein and lipid weights to determine the Gompertz growth parameter (B), mature body protein weight (Pm) and the lipid: protein ratio at maturity (LPRm) The B value for boars was 0-0107 (s.e. 0·00060) per day and for females 0·0120 (s.e. 0·00044) per day. Pm estimates were 38·7 kg and 28·4 kg whilst the LPRm ratios were 2·60 and 3·89 for boars and gilts respectively.

Keywords

pigsgenetic parametersgrowthmathematical models.
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , April 1993 , pp. 245 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

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

Black, J. L., Campbell, R. G., Williams, I. H., James, K. J. and Davies, G. T. 1986. Simulation of energy and amino acid utilization in the pig. Research and Development in Agriculture 3:121–125.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1989. The growth of turkeys. In Recent advances in turkey science, (ed. Nixey, C. and Grey, T. C.), pp. 135–166. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Ferguson, N. S. 1989. An approach to modelling feed intake, body composition and nutrient requirements in growing pigs. M.Sc. Agric. Thesis, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg.Google Scholar
Ferguson, N. S. and Gous, R. M. 1993. Evaluation of pig genotypes. I. Theoretical aspects of measuring genetic parameters. Animal Production 56: 233–243.Google Scholar
Kemm, E. H., Siebrits, F. K., Ras, M. N. and Badenhorst, H. A. 1991. Feed intake, live mass gain, body composition and protein deposition in pigs fed three protein levels. South African journal of Animal Science 21:127.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Stamataris, C., Emmans, G. C. and Whittemore, C. T. 1991. The effects of food protein content on the performance of pigs previously given foods with low or moderate protein contents. Animal Production 52:165–173.Google Scholar
Moughan, P. J., Smith, W. C. and Pearson, G. 1987. Description and validation of a model simulating growth in the pig (20-90 kg liveweight). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 30: 481–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomar, C., Harris, D. L. and Minvielle, F. 1991. Computer simulation model of swine production systems. I. Modelling the growth of young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 69: 1468–1488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siebrits, F. K., Kemm, E. H., Ras, M. N. and Barnes, P. M. 1986. Protein deposition in pigs as influenced by sex, type and live mass. 1. The pattern and composition of protein deposition. South African journal of Animal Science 16: 23.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. and Fawcett, R. H. 1976. Theoretical aspects of a flexible model to simulate protein and lipid growth in pigs. Animal Production 22: 87–96.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Tullis, J. B. and Emmans, G. C. 1988. Protein growth in pigs. Animal Production 46: 437–445.Google Scholar