Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T17:55:20.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic selection, sex and feeding treatment affect the whole-body chemical composition of sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2007

R. M. Lewis  and
G. C. Emmans
R. M. Lewis*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences (0306), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
G. C. Emmans
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK Animal Nutrition and Health Department, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
E-mail: rmlewis@vt.edu
Get access

Abstract

Hypotheses on total body chemical composition were tested using data from 350 Suffolk sheep grown to a wide range of live weights, and fed in a non-limiting way, or with reduced amounts of feed, or ad libitum on feeds of reduced protein content. The sheep were from an experiment where selection used an index designed to increase the lean deposition rate while restricting the fat deposition rate. Ultrasound muscle and fat depths were the only composition measurements in the index. The animals were males and females from a selection (S) line and its unselected control (C). The protein content of the lipid-free dry matter was unaffected by live weight, sex or feeding treatment with only a very small effect of genetic line (0.762 kg/kg in S and 0.753 kg/kg in C; P < 0.05). The form of the relationship between water and protein was not affected by any of the factors; in the different kinds of sheep it was consistent with no effect other than through differences in mature protein weight. The water : protein ratio at maturity was estimated as 3.45. Over the whole dataset, lipid weight (L) increased with protein weight (P) according to L = 0.3135 × P1.850. Allowing for this scaling, fatness increased on low-protein feeds, was greater in females than in males and in C than in S (P < 0.001). Lipid content (g/kg fleece-free empty body weight) was reduced by restricted feeding only in males at the highest slaughter weight (114 kg). The lines differed in lipid content (P < 0.001) with means of 265.1 g/kg for C and 237.3 g/kg for S. Importantly, there was no interaction between line and feeding treatments. A higher proportion of total body protein was in the carcass in S than in C (0.627 v. 0.610; P < 0.001). For lipid, the difference was reversed (0.736 v. 0.744; P < 0.05). The total energy content increased quadratically with slaughter weight. At a particular weight, the energy content of gain was higher in females than in males and in C than in S. Genetic selection affected body composition at a weight favouring the distribution of protein to the carcass and lipid to the non-carcass. Once allowing for effects of genetic selection, sex and feeding treatment on fatness, simple rules can be used to generate the chemical composition of sheep.

Keywords

carcass compositionfatnessfeeding treatmentgenetic selectionsheep
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 1 , Issue 10 , November 2007 , pp. 1427 - 1434
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2007

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 and Food Research Council 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council 1981. The nutrient requirements of pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough, UK.Google Scholar
Armsby, HP, Moulton, CR 1925. The animal as a convertor of matter and energy. Chemical Catalog Company, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Black, JL, Campbell, RG, Williams, IH, James, KJ, Davies, GT 1986. Simulation of energy and amino-acid utilization in the pig. Research and Development in Agriculture 3, 121–145.Google Scholar
Blaxter, KL, Fowler, VR, Gill, JC 1982. A study of the growth of sheep to maturity. Journal of Agricultural Science 98, 405–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmans, GC 1988. Genetic components of potential and actual growth. In Animal breeding opportunities (ed. RB Land, G Bulfield and WG Hill), British Society of Animal Production occasional publication no. 12, pp. 153–181. BSAP, Edinburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmans, GC, Kyriazakis, I 1995. A general method for predicting the weight of water in the empty bodies of pigs. Animal Science 61, 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GenStat 2005. GenStat for windows, 8th editionLawes Agricultural Trust, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, UK.Google Scholar
Jenkins, TG, Leymaster, KA 1993. Estimates of maturing rates and masses at maturity for body components of sheep. Journal of Animal Science 71, 2952–2957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knap, PW 2000. Time trends of the Gompertz growth parameters in ‘meat-type’ pigs. Animal Science 70, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriazakis, I, Emmans, GC 1992. The effects of varying protein and energy intakes on the growth and body composition of pigs. 1. The effects of energy intake at constant, high protein intake. British Journal of Nutrition 68, 603–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, RM, Emmans, GC, Dingwall, WS, Simm, G 2002a. A description of the growth of sheep and its genetic analysis. Animal Science 74, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, RM, Emmans, GC, Simm, G 2002b. Effects of index selection on the carcass composition of sheep given either ad libitum or controlled amounts of food. Animal Science 75, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, RM, Emmans, GC, Simm, G 2004. Effects of index selection on the carcass composition of sheep given foods of different protein content ad libitum. Animal Science 78, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, RM, Emmans, GC, Simm, G 2006. Describing effects of genetic selection, nutrition, and their interplay in prime lambs using growth and efficiency functions. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 57, 707–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council 1985. Nutrient requirements of sheep, 6th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Parks, JR 1982. A theory of feeding and growth of animals. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simm, G, Dingwall, WS 1989. Selection indices for lean meat production in sheep. Livestock Production Science 21, 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simm, G, Lewis, RM, Grundy, B, Dingwall, WS 2002. Responses to selection for lean growth in sheep. Animal Science 74, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, PC, Robertson, S, Chamberlain, DG, Livingstone, RM, Garthwaite, PH, Dewey, PJS, Smart, R, Whyte, C 1988. Predicting the metabolizable energy (ME) content of compound feeds for ruminants. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. W Haresign and DJA Cole), pp. 127–146. Butterworths, London, UK.Google Scholar
Whittemore, CT 1993. The science and practice of pig production. Longman Scientific and Technical, Essex, UK.Google Scholar