Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-z8dxg Total loading time: 0.412 Render date: 2021-09-23T16:00:39.310Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Physical and chemical composition of the carcass of three different types of pigs grown from 25 to 115 kg live weight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

C.T. Whittemore*
Affiliation:
The University of Edinburgh, Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, Agriculture Building, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
D.M. Green
Affiliation:
The University of Edinburgh, Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, Agriculture Building, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
J.D. Wood
Affiliation:
Division of Food Animal Science, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
A.V. Fisher
Affiliation:
Division of Food Animal Science, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
C.P. Schofield
Affiliation:
BBSRC Silsoe Research Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford MK45 4HS, UK
*
Get access

Abstract

A total of 74 pigs representing three commercially available crossbred types, Landrace (50%), Pietrain (50%) and Meishan (25%), were given food ad libitum over a 25- to 115-kg growth period and serially slaughtered for physical and chemical analysis in five groups at 32, 42, 63, 82 and 114 kg live weight (W). Results are presented in the order of pig type as above. Pig types grew at similar overall rates of live body gain, but the Meishan type ate more food and had greater back fat depth. The Pietrain type was least fat. Dissected fatty tissue grew substantially faster than the carcass as a whole; allometric exponents being 1·64, 1·34 and 1·52 (P < 0·05) for the Landrace, Pietrain and Meishan types respectively. Dissected lean tissue gains were 0·419, 0·427 and 0·308 kg daily (P < 0·01), and dissected fatty tissue gains were 0·251, 0·158 and 0·218 kg daily (P < 0·05); the Meishan type being slowest for lean gain and the Pietrain type slowest for fatty tissue gain. The Pietrain type had the largest cross-sectional area of the longissimus dorsi muscle, and the Meishan type the smallest. The pelvic limb of the Meishan type lost density (as measured by specific gravity) fastest, and that of the Pietrain slowest as the pigs grew. The Meishan type had a lower proportion of its carcass lean and a higher proportion of its carcass fat in the pelvic limb than did the other two types. For each kg of live-weight gain, 0·037, 0·041 and 0·032 kg (P < 0·05) of chemical protein was deposited in the pelvic limb of the three types respectively. Equivalent values for chemical lipid were 0·041, 0·035 and 0·041 (P < 0·05). The Meishan type retained protein at a relatively slower rate in the pelvic limb than in the body as a whole. The Pietrain type had the greatest ultimate protein mass in the pelvic limb. Estimation of whole body protein content as a linear function of pig live weight gives coefficients of 0·154, 0·178 and 0·168 kg (P < 0·05) for the three types respectively. Equivalent values for whole body lipid content were 0·269, 0·214 and 0·274 (P < 0·05). Best estimates of the daily rates of protein retention in the body of the whole live pig were 0·152, 0·197 and 0·142 kg/day for the Landrace, Pietrain and Meishan types respectively.

Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2003

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

Adam, J. L. and Smith, W. C. 1964. The use of specific gravity and its reciprocal in predicting the carcass composition of pigs slaughtered at three weights. Animal Production 6: 97105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1980. Official methods of analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA.Google ScholarPubMed
Brown, A. J. and Wood, J. D. 1979. Pig carcass evaluation – measurement of composition using a standardised butchery method. Meat Research Institute memorandum no. 42. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Gompertz, B. 1825. On the nature and the function expressive of the law of human mortality and a new method of determining the value of life contingencies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 115: 513585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. M., Schofield, C. P. and Whittemore, C. T. 2003. Food intake and live growth performance of pigs measured automatically and continuously from 25 to 115 kg live weight. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture In press.Google Scholar
Marquardt, D. W. 1963. An algorithm for least squares estimation of parameters. Journal of the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics 11: 431441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planella, J. and Cook, G. L. 1991. Accuracy and consistency of prediction of pig carcass lean concentration from P2 fat thickness and sample joint dissection. Animal Production 53: 345352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Press, W. H., Flannery, B. P., Teukolsky, S. A. and Vetterling, W. T. 1986. Numerical recipes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Quiniou, N., Dourmad, J.-Y. and Noblet, J. 1996a. Effect of energy intake on the performance of different types of pig from 45 to 100 kg body weight. 1. Protein and lipid deposition. Animal Science 63: 277288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiniou, N., Noblet, J. and Dourmad, J.-Y. 1996b. Effect of energy intake on the performance of different types of pig from 45 to 100 kg body weight. 2. Tissue gain. Animal Science 63: 289296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiniou, N., Noblet, J., Dourmad, J. -Y. and Milgen, J. van. 1999. Influence of energy supply on growth characteristics in pigs and consequences for growth modelling. Livestock Production Science 60: 317328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandberg, F. 2002. Internal report. Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Schinckel, A. P. and de Lange, C. F. M. 1996. Characterization of growth parameters needed as inputs for pig growth models. Journal of Animal Science 74: 20212036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tullis, J. B. 1982. Protein growth in pigs. Ph. D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Wagner, J. R., Schinckel, A. P., Chen, W., Forrest, J. C. and Coe, B. L. 1999. Analysis of body composition changes of swine during growth and development. Journal of Animal Science 77: 14421466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. and Green, D. M. 2002. The description of the rate of protein and lipid growth in pigs in relation to live weight. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 138: 415423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9
Cited by

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.

Physical and chemical composition of the carcass of three different types of pigs grown from 25 to 115 kg live weight
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.

Physical and chemical composition of the carcass of three different types of pigs grown from 25 to 115 kg live weight
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.

Physical and chemical composition of the carcass of three different types of pigs grown from 25 to 115 kg live weight
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *