Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T09:49:53.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genotype with nutrition interactions for carcass composition and meat quality in pig genotypes selected for components of efficient lean growth rate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

N. D. Cameron ,
J. C. Penman ,
A. C. Fisken ,
G. R. Nute ,
A. M. Perry  and
J. D. Wood
N. D. Cameron
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
J. C. Penman
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
A. C. Fisken
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
G. R. Nute
Affiliation:
Division of Food Animal Science, School of Veterinari Science, Universit/ of Bristol, Langford BS4 05U
A. M. Perry
Affiliation:
Division of Food Animal Science, School of Veterinari Science, Universit/ of Bristol, Langford BS4 05U
J. D. Wood
Affiliation:
Division of Food Animal Science, School of Veterinari Science, Universit/ of Bristol, Langford BS4 05U
Get access

Abstract

Genotype with nutrition interactions in carcass composition and meat quality traits were examined by testing pigs from four selection lines and a control line on isoenergetic diets, which differed in lysine: energy content. The selected lines resulted from seven generations of selection for high daily food intake, lean food conversion ratio (LFC) and lean growth rate on ad-libitum or restricted (LGS) feeding regimes in a Large White population. There were 128 pigs in the study, with 24 pigs per selection line and 32 pigs from a control line. During performance test, 30 to 90 kg, pigs were offered one of three isoenergetic diets, 14·0 MJ digestible energy (DE) per kg dry matter, which differed in ileal digestible lysine: digestible energy (A: 0·40 , C: 0·76 and E: 1·12 g lysine per MJ DE) on ad-libitum or restricted (0.75 g/g ad-libitum daily food intake) feeding regimes.

For the majority of performance test, carcass composition and meat quality traits there was no evidence of a genotype with diet or genotype with feeding regime interaction. The selection line with feeding regime interactions for average daily gain, daily food intake and rates of lean and subcutaneous fat deposition were primarily due to no feeding regime effect for the LFC selection line. Selection for high LFC had reduced ad-libitum daily food intake to such an extent that it was not significantly different from daily food intake on a restricted feeding regime, unlike other selection lines in the study. A selection line with feeding regime interaction was detected for muscle рH24h and muscle reflectance, which resulted from the LGS selection line. LGS pigs offered food ad libitum had higher muscle рH24h and lower muscle reflectance than LGS pigs given food at a restricted level, while there was no effect of feeding regime for the other selection lines.

The general absence of genotype with nutrition interactions for traits measured in the study indicated that the ranking of genotypes for performance test traits, carcass composition and meat quality traits will not be dependent on diet or feeding regime. Genotype specific nutritional inputs will also not be required for identification of pigs of high genetic merit, within a genotype. However, diet and feeding regime had significant effects on carcass composition and meat quality traits, such that the estimated mean value of a genotype will be dependent on the diet or feeding regime used to evaluate the genotype.

Keywords

genotype nutrition interactionlean growthmeat qualitypigsselection
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , August 1999 , pp. 69 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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

Bereskin, B., Steele, N. C. and Mitchell, A. D. 1990. Selection line × diet interactions for two lines of pigs fed 12 or 24% protein diets. Journal of Animal Science 68: 944–959.Google ScholarPubMed
Blanchard, P. J., Chadwick, J. P., Warkup, C. C., Ellis, M. and Deans, G. 1995. The influence of rate of lean and fat tissue development on pork eating quality. Animal Science 60: 512 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Blanchard, P. J., Mantle, D., Chadwick, J. P. and Willis, M. 1998. Effect of feeding a high energy/low protein diet to finishing pigs on growth and meat quality. Proceedings of the British Society of Animai Science, 1998, p. 34.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D. 1994. Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. 1. Selection pressure applied and direct responses in a Large White herd. Animal Production 59: 251–262.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D. and Curran, M. K. 1995a. Genotype with feeding regime interaction in pigs divergently selected for components of efficient lean growth rate. Animal Science 61: 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, N. D. and Curran, M. K. 1995b. Responses in carcass composition to divergent selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. Animal Science 61: 347–359.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D., Curran, M. K. and Kerr, J. C. 1994. Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. 3. Responses to selection with a restricted feeding regime. Animal Production 59: 271–279.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D. and MacLeod, M. G. 1997. Genotype with nutrition interaction for performance test traits in pigs selected for lean growth rate. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1997, p. 29.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D., Nute, G. R., Brown, S. N., Enser, M. and Wood, J. D. 1999. Meat quality of Large White pig genotypes selected for components of efficient lean growth rate. Animal Science 68: 115–127.Google Scholar
Cook, G. L., Jones, D. W. and Kempster, A. J. 1983. A note on a simple criterion for choosing among sample joints for use in double sampling. Animal Production 36: 493–495.Google Scholar
Culler, R. D., Parrish, F. C., Smith, G. C. and Cross, H. R. 1978. Relationship of myofibril fragmentation index to certain chemical, physical and sensory characteristics of bovine longissimus muscle. Journal of Food Science 43: 1177–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, A. V. 1990. New approaches to measuring fat in the carcass of meat animals. In Reducing fat in meat animals (eci. Wood, J. D. and Fisher, A. V.), pp. 255–335. Elsevier, London.Google Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee. 1989. Genstat 5 référence manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Goerl, K. F., Eilert, R. W., Mandigo, R. W., Chen, H. Y. and Miller, P. S. 1995. Pork characteristics as affected by two populations of swine and six crude protein levels. Journal of Animal Science 73: 3621–3626.Google ScholarPubMed
Hill, W. G. 1978. Design of selection experiments for comparing alternative testing regimes. Heredity 41: 371–376.Google Scholar
MacDougall, D. B. and Rhodes, D. N. 1972. Characteristics of the appearance of meat. 3. Studies on the colour of meat from young bulls. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 23: 637–647.Google Scholar
McPhee, C. P. and Trout, G. R. 1995. The effects of selection for lean growth and the halothane alíele on carcass and meat quality of pigs transported long and short distances to slaughter. Livestock Production Science 42: 55–62.Google Scholar
Patterson, H. D. and Thompson, R. 1971. Recovery of interblock information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58: 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, C. R. 1973. Linear statistical inference and its applications, second edition. Wiley, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, S., Lundeheim, N. and Andersson, K. 1995. Growth and carcass traits in pigs after selection for lean tissue growth rate on low and high protein diets. Animal Science 61: 341–346.Google Scholar
Valaja, J., Suomi, K., Alaviuhkola, T. and Immonen, I. 1992. Effect of dietary fish-meal on the palatability and fatty-acid composition of pork. Agricultural Science in Finland 1: 21–26.Google Scholar
Van Lunen, T. A. and Cole, D. J. A. 1996. The effect of lysine/digestible energy ratio on growth performance and nitrogen deposition of hybrid boars, gilts and castrated male pigs. Animal Science 63: 465–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vries, A. G. de, Wal, P. G. van der, Long, T., Eikelenboom, G. and Merks, J. W. M. 1994. Genetic parameters of pork quality and production traits in Yorkshire populations. Livestock Production Science 40: 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warkup, C.C. and Kempster, A. J. 1991. A possible explanation of the variation in tenderness and juiciness of pig meat. Animal Production 52: 559 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Wood, J. D., Nute, G. R., Fursey, G. A. J. and Cuthbertson, A. 1995. The effect of cooking conditions on the eating quality of pork. Meat Science 40: 127–135.Google ScholarPubMed