Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-xbbwl Total loading time: 0.272 Render date: 2021-03-04T04:34:12.667Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Article contents

Interspecies differences in the empty body chemical composition of domestic animals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2013

H. Maeno
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Husbandry Resources, Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Kitasirakawa-Oiwake-Cho, Sakyo-Ku, 606-8502 Kyoto, Japan
K. Oishi
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Husbandry Resources, Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Kitasirakawa-Oiwake-Cho, Sakyo-Ku, 606-8502 Kyoto, Japan
H. Hirooka
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Husbandry Resources, Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Kitasirakawa-Oiwake-Cho, Sakyo-Ku, 606-8502 Kyoto, Japan
Corresponding
Get access

Abstract

Domestication of animals has resulted in phenotypic changes by means of natural and human-directed selection. Body composition is important for farm animals because it reflects the status of energy reserves. Thus, there is the possibility that farm animals as providers of food have been more affected by human-directed selection for body composition than laboratory animals. In this study, an analysis was conducted to determine what similarities and differences in body composition occur between farm and laboratory animals using literature data obtained from seven comparative slaughter studies (n = 136 observations). Farm animals from four species (cattle, goats, pigs and sheep) were all castrated males, whereas laboratory animals from three species (dogs, mice and rats) comprised males and/or females. All animals were fed ad libitum. The allometric equation, Y = aXb, was used to determine the influence of species on the accretion rates of chemical components (Y, kg) relative to the growth of the empty body, fat-free empty body or protein weights (X, kg). There were differences between farm and laboratory animals in terms of the allometric growth coefficients for chemical components relative to the empty BW and fat-free empty BW (P < 0.01); farm animals had more rapid accretion rates of fat (P < 0.01) but laboratory animals had more rapid accretion rates of protein, water and ash (P < 0.01). In contrast, there was no difference in terms of the allometric growth coefficients for protein and water within farm animals (P > 0.2). The allometric growth coefficients for ash weight relative to protein weight for six species except sheep were not different from a value of 1 (P > 0.1), whereas that of sheep was smaller than 1 (P < 0.01). When compared at the same fat content of the empty body, the rate of change in water content (%) per unit change in fat content (%) was not different (P > 0.05) across farm animal species and similar ash-to-protein ratios were obtained except for dogs. The fraction of empty body energy gain retained as fat increased in a curvilinear manner, and there was little variation among farm animals at the same fat content of the empty body. These findings may provide the opportunity to develop a general model to predict empty body composition across farm animal species. In contrast, there were considerable differences of chemical body composition between farm and laboratory animals.

Type
Physiology and functional biology of systems
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Agricultural Research Council (ARC) 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough, UK.Google Scholar
Bailey, CB, Kitts, WD, Wood, AJ 1960. Changes in the gross chemical composition of the mouse during growth in relation to the assessment of physiological age. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 40, 143155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, RT, Butterfield, RM 1976. New concepts of cattle growth. University of Sydney Press, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Burton, JH, Reid, JT 1969. Interrelationships among energy input, body size, age, and body composition of sheep. Journal of Nutrition 97, 517524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chanutin, A 1931. The influence of growth on a number of constituents of the white rat. Journal of Biological Chemistry 93, 3137.Google Scholar
Clawson, AJ, Garlich, JD, Coffey, MT, Pond, WG 1991. Nutritional, physiological, genetic, sex, and age effects on fat-free dry matter composition of the body in avian, fish, and mammalian species: a review. Journal of Animal Science 69, 36173644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) 1990. Feeding standards for Australian livestock ruminants. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
De Lange, CFM, Morel, PCH, Birkett, SH 2003. Modeling chemical and physical composition of the growing pig. Journal of Animal Science 81 (E. suppl. 2.), E159E165.Google Scholar
Eisen, EJ 1987. Effects of selection for rapid postweaning gain on maturing patterns of fat depots in mice. Journal of Animal Science 64, 133147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisen, EJ 1989. Selection experiments for body composition in mice and rats: a review. Livestock Production Science 23, 1732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmans, GC 1988. Genetic components of potential and actual growth. In Animal breeding opportunities occasional publication no. 12 (ed. RB Land, G Bulfield and WG Hill), pp. 153181. British Society of Animal Production, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.Google Scholar
Emmans, GC, Oldham, JD 1988. Modeling of growth and nutrition on different species. In Modeling of livestock production systems (ed. S Korver and JAM van Arendonk), pp. 1321. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Fortin, A, Simpfendorfer, S, Reid, JT, Ayala, HJ, Anrique, R, Kertz, AF 1980. Effect of level of energy intake and influence of breed and sex on the chemical composition of cattle. Journal of Animal Science 51, 604614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haecker, TL 1920. Investigations in beef production. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 193.Google Scholar
Hammond, J 1932. Growth and development of mutton qualities in the sheep. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.Google Scholar
Hirooka, H, Groen, AF, Hillers, J 1998. Developing breeding objectives for beef cattle production I. A bio-economic simulation model. Animal Science 66, 607621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koong, LJ 1977. A new method for estimating energetic efficiencies. Journal of Nutrition 107, 17241728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyriazakis, I, Emmans, GC 1992. The growth of mammals following a period of nutritional limitation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 156, 485498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, RM, Emmans, GC 2007. Genetic selection, sex and feeding treatment affect the whole-body chemical composition of sheep. Animal 1, 14271434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moulton, CR 1923. Age and chemical development in mammals. Journal of Biological Chemistry 57, 7997.Google Scholar
Murray, JA 1922. The chemical composition of animal bodies. Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge) 12, 103110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 7th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Ogink, NWM 1993. Genetic size and growth in goats. PhD thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Pitts, GC, Bullard, TR 1968. Some interspecific aspects of body composition in mammals. In Body composition in animals and man (ed. JT Reid), pp. 4570. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Prothero, J 1995. Bone and fat as a function of body weight in adult mammals. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. Part A 111, 633639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reid, JT, Bensadoun, A, Bull, LS, Burton, JH, Gleason, PA, Han, LK, Joo, YD, Johnson, DE, McManus, WR, Paldines, OL, Stoud, JW, Tyrrell, HF, Van Niekerk, BDH, Wellington, GH 1968. Some peculiarities in the body composition of animals. In Body composition in animals and man (ed. JT Reid), pp. 1944. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Robelin, J, Geay, Y 1978. Estimation de la composition chimique du corps entier des bovines à partir du poids des dėpôts adipieux totaux. Annales de Zootechnie 27, 159167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schinckel, AP, Mahan, DC, Wiseman, TG, Einstein, ME 2008. Growth of protein, moisture, lipid, and ash of two genetic lines of barrows and gilts from twenty to one hundred twenty-five kilograms of body weight. Journal of Animal Science 86, 460471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seebeck, RM 1968. Developmental studies of body composition. Animal Breeding Abstracts 36, 167181.Google Scholar
Sheng, HP, Huggins, RA 1971. Growth of the beagle: changes in chemical composition. Growth 35, 369376.Google ScholarPubMed
St-Pierre, NR 2001. Invited review: integrating quantitative findings from multiple studies using mixed model methodology. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 741755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, CS 1985. Use of genetic size-scaling in evaluation of animal growth. Journal of Animal Science 61 (suppl. 2), 118143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tedeschi, LO, Boin, C, Fox, DG, Leme, PR, Alleoni, GF, Lanna, DPD 2002. Energy requirement for maintenance and growth of Nellore bulls and steers fed high-forage diets. Journal of Animal Science 80, 16711682.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tess, MW, Dickerson, GE, Nienaber, JA, Ferrell, CL 1986. Growth, development and body composition in three genetic stocks of swine. Journal of Animal Science 62, 968979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, AJF 1985. Differences in the energetic efficiency of animal growth. Journal of Animal Science 61 (suppl. 2), 92103.Google Scholar
Whittemore, CT, Tullis, JB, Emmans, GC 1988. Protein growth in pigs. Animal Production 46, 437445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, CB 2005. Technical note: a dynamic model to predict the composition of fat-free matter gains in cattle. Journal of Animal Science 83, 12621266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Maeno Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

PDF 63 KB

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 11
Total number of PDF views: 153 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 4th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Interspecies differences in the empty body chemical composition of domestic animals
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Interspecies differences in the empty body chemical composition of domestic animals
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Interspecies differences in the empty body chemical composition of domestic animals
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *