Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:51:34.037Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative performance and body composition of control and selection line large white pigs 3. Three low feeding scales for a fixed time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. Ellis ,
W. C. Smith ,
Ruth Henderson ,
C. T. Whittemore ,
R. Laird  and
P. Phillips
M. Ellis
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
W. C. Smith
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
Ruth Henderson
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
C. T. Whittemore
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
R. Laird
Affiliation:
West of Scotland Agricultural College, Auchincruive, Ayr KA6 5HW
P. Phillips
Affiliation:
ARC Unit of Statistics, James Clerk Maxwell Building, King's Buildings, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ
Get access

Abstract

Growth performance and body composition differences between Large White control (C) and index-selected (S) pigs were evaluated on feeding scales calculated to give very low, low and medium daily growth rates of approximately 450 g, 550 g and 650 g respectively. Starting at 30·3 (s.e. 0·32) kg, 72 boars were penned in groups of six, and one C and one S boar was fed on each of the three feeding scales for 84 days. The feeding scales started at 1·1, 1·2 and 1·3 kg per pig per day for the intended very low, low and medium growth rates with weekly increments of 0·025, 0·050 and 0·075 kg per pig per day. The 34 C and 35 S boars which completed the trial were slaughtered, their carcasses dissected and the whole empty bodies minced and chemically analysed. In no case was the interaction between line of pig and feeding treatment significant. S boars grew faster than C boars on all three levels of feeding. S boars also grew lean tissue faster, deposited less total fat, and had smaller backfat depths than C boars. Similar differences between lines in chemical composition were also apparent for whole body crude protein and lipid. Although the index selection at Newcastle was based on ad libitum performance tests, improvements in the lean content and lean tissue growth rates of the selection line were apparent even at very low levels of feeding.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , October 1983 , pp. 253 - 258
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1983

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

Chadwick, J. P. 1977. Selection for economy of production and carcass lean content in Large White pigs and its influence on meat quality characteristics. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Cuthblrtson, A. 1968. PIDA dissection technique. Proc. Svmp. Melh. Carcass Evaluation. Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod.. Dublin.Google Scholar
Ellis, M., C., Smith. W., Henderson, Ruth, Whittemore, C. T. and Laird, R. 1983. Comparative performance and body composition of control and selection line Large White Pigs. 2. Feeding to appetite for a fixed time. Anim. Prod. 36: 407–413.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R. 1979. Energy requirements of the growing pig. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Lewis, D.), pp. 73–82. Butterworth. London.Google Scholar
Henderson, Ruth, Whittemore, C. T., Ellis, M., Smith, W. C. and Laird, R. 1982. Effects of index selection at bacon weight on early growth rate and body composition in Large White pigs. Anim. Prod. 35: 81–85.Google Scholar
Henderson, Ruth., Whittemore, C. T., Ellis, M., Smith, W. C., Laird, R. and Phillips, P. 1983. Comparative performance and body composition of control and selection line Large White pigs. 1. On a generous fixed feeding scale for a fixed time. Anim. Prod. 36: 399–405.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1980. Genstat v. Mark 403. Rothamsted Experimental Station. Harpenden. Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
Stant, E. G. Jr, Martin, T. G., Judge, M. D. and Harrington, R. B. 1968. Physical separation and chemical analysis of the porcine carcass at 23. 46. 68 and 91 kilograms liveweight. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 636–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. 1977. Selection for leanness and the energetic efficiency of growth in meat animals. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 36: 53–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittemore, C. T. 1978. Influence of nutritional environment on growth and choice of test regime when selecting for meat production. Proc. 20th Br. Poultry Breeders Round Table. Birmingham.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. and Fawcett, R. H. 1974. Model responses of the growing pig to the dietary intake of energy and protein. Anim. Prod. 19: 221–231.Google Scholar