Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T02:56:50.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and body composition of highly selected boars and gilts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

T. A. Van Lunen  and
D. J. A. Cole
T. A. Van Lunen
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough LE12 5RD
D. J. A. Cole
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough LE12 5RD
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to measure the growth and body composition changes of highly selected boars and gilts from 10 to 150 kg live weight. Thirty boars and 30 gilts were given food ad libitum and two pigs of each sex were slaughtered at 10-kg increments from 10 kg to 150 kg live weight at which time the chemical composition of the body was determined. Boars and gilts exhibited different patterns of growth, nitrogen deposition rate (NDR) and lipid deposition rate (LDR) with boars exhibiting a sharp peak in daily live-weight gain and NDR while gilts exhibited almost a flat response curve over the age and weight range tested. Gilts experienced a peak in LDR at a lighter weight than boars (75·8 v. 100·5 kg) while NDR peaked at the same weight for both sexes (70·8 kg). Maximum NDR for boars and gilts was 37·7 and 28·1 glday (235·5 and 175·5 glday protein deposition rate) respectively. The Gompertz growth equation [Y = A + C × EXP (−EXP (−B ×(X−M)))] was shown to accurately represent the growth trajectory, while the logarithmic derivative of the allometric equation [Y = aXb] was used to determine live weight and body composition relationships. Combined sex relationships indicated that total body nitrogen and lipid concentrations increased at the same rate. A quadratic equation for the prediction of NDR based on live weight was developed for this genotype (NDR = 24·06 + 0·34 W − 0·002W2). In conclusion, the results provide a basis for comparison of body composition and growth patterns between the highly selected genotype tested and pigs from other genetic backgrounds. Sex effects exist for growth and body composition but combined sex prediction equations can be used to estimate NDR potential.

Keywords

body compositiongenotypesgrowthpigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , August 1998 , pp. 107 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1998

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

Agricultural Research Council. 1981. The nutrient requirements of pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1980. Official methods of analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Batterham, E. S. 1994. Protein and energy relationships for growing pigs. In Principles of pig science (ed. Cole, D. J. A., Wiseman, J. and Varley, M. A.), pp. 107–121. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. G., Johnson, R. J., King, R. H. and Taverner, M. R. 1990. Effects of gender and genotype on the response of growing pigs to exogenous administration of porcine growth hormone. Journal of Animal Science 68:2674–2681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, R. G. and Taverner, M. R. 1985. Effect of strain and sex on protein and energy metabolism in growing pigs. In Energy metabolism of farm animals, (ed. Moe, R. W., Tyrell, H. F. and Reynolds, P. J.), pp. 78–81. European Association of Animal Production. Rowman and Littlefields, USA.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. G., Taverner, M. R. and Curie, D. M. 1985. Effects of sex and energy intake between 48-90 kg live weight on protein deposition in growing pigs. Animal Production. 40:497–503.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. G., Taverner, M. R. and Curie, D. M. 1988. The effects of sex and live weight on the growing pigs' response to dietary protein. Animal Production 46:123–130.Google Scholar
Carr, J. R., Boorman, K. N. and Cole, D. J. A. 1977. Nitrogen retention in the pig. British Journal of Nutrition 37: 143–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chadd, S. A., Cole, D. J. A. and Walters, J. R. 1993. The food intake, performance and carcass characteristics of two pig genotypes grown to 120 kg live weight. Animal Production 57:473–481.Google Scholar
Close, W. H. 1994. Feeding new genotypes: establishing amino acid/energy requirements. In Principles of pig science (ed. Cole, D. J. A., Wiseman, J. and Varley, M. A.), pp. 123–140. Nottingham University Press, Sutton Bonington.Google Scholar
Cromwell, G. L., Cline, T. R., Crenshaw, J. D., Crenshaw, T. D., Ewan, R. C., Hamilton, C. R., Lewis, A. J., Mahan, D. C., Miller, E. R., Pettigrew, J. E., Tribble, L. F. and Veum, T. L. 1993. The dietary protein and (or) lysine requirements of barrows and gilts. Journal of Animal Science 71:1510–1519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, A. S., Pearson, G. and Carr, J. J. 1980. The carcass composition of male, castrate male and female pigs resulting from two levels of feeding. Journal of Animal Science 95:251–262.Google Scholar
Doornenbal, H. 1971. Growth, development and chemical composition of the pig. I. Lean tissue and protein. Growth 35: 281–295.Google ScholarPubMed
Elsley, F. W. H., McDonald, I. and Fowler, V. R. 1964. The effect of plane of nutrition on the carcasses of pigs and lambs when variations in fat content are excluded. Animal Production 6:141–154.Google Scholar
Ferguson, N. S. and Gous, R. M. 1993. Evaluation of pig genotypes. 2. Testing experimental procedure. Animal Production 56: 245–249.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R. 1968. Body development and some problems of its evaluation. In Growth and development of mammals (ed. Lodge, G. A. and Lamming, G. E.), pp. 195–211. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R. and Livingstone, R. M. 1972. Modern concepts of growth in pigs. In Pig production (ed. Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 143–161. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee. 1987. Genstat 5 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Greef, K. H. de, Kemp, B. and Verstegen, M. W. A. 1992. Performance and body composition of fattening pigs of two strains during protein deficiency and subsequent realimentation. Livestock Production Science 30:140–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greef, K. H. de, Verstegen, M. W. A., Kemp, B. and Van der Togt, P. L. 1994. The effect of body weight and energy intake on the composition of deposited tissue in pigs. Animal Production 58:263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1932. Problems of relative growth. Methuen, London.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 21:127–136.Google Scholar
Kielanowski, J. 1969. Energy and protein metabolism in growing pigs. Revista Cubana de Ciencia Agricola 3: 207–216.Google Scholar
Kielanowski, J. and Kotarbinska, M. 1970. Further studies on energy metabolism in the pig. In Energy metabolism of farm animals (ed. Schurch, A. and Wenk, C.), pp. 145–148. Juis Duick, Zurich.Google Scholar
Shields, R. G., Mahan, D. C. and Graham, P. C. 1983. Changes in swine body composition from birth to 145 kg. Journal of Animal Science 57:43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shebaita, M. K. 1977. Evaluation of water concept for in vivo body composition. World Review of Animal Production 13: 65–74.Google Scholar
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 16:23–27.Google Scholar
Stamataris, C., Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1991. The performance and body composition of young pigs following a period of growth retardation by food restriction. Animal Production 53: 373–381.Google Scholar
Stranks, M. H., Cooke, B. C., Fairbairn, C. B., Fowler, N. G., Kirby, P. S., McCracken, K. J. and Morgan, C. A. 1988. Nutrient allowances for growing pigs. Research and Development in Agriculture 5: 71–88.Google Scholar
Vangen, O. 1977. Studies on a two trait selection experiment in pigs. 1. Growth, feed consumption and feed conversion ratio after 10 years of selection for growth rate and backfat thickness. Acta Agriculture Scandinavica 27: 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lunen, T. A. and Cole, D. J. A. 1996. Energy-amino acid interactions in modern pig genotypes. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Wiseman, J. and Garnsworthy, P.), pp. 233–261. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. 1976. A study of growth responses to nutrient inputs by modelling. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 35:383–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittemore, C. T. 1993. The science and practice of pig production. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. 1994. Growth and the simulation of animal responses. In Principles of pig science (ed. Cole, D. J. A., Wiseman, J. and Varley, M. A.), pp. 55–74. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar