Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-wph62 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T00:48:00.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of tissue weight distribution in Landrace, Hampshire and Duroc Jersey pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. R. Goenaga  and
A. E. Carden
P. R. Goenaga
Affiliation:
Pergamino Agricultural Experiment Station (I.N.T.A.), 2700 Pergamino, B.A., Argentina
A. E. Carden
Affiliation:
Pergamino Agricultural Experiment Station (I.N.T.A.), 2700 Pergamino, B.A., Argentina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The carcasses of 20 Landrace, 20 Hampshire and 20 Duroc Jersey barrows were dissected in order to study the influence of the breed on tissue weight distribution.

After weaning, at 56 days of age, the animals were allocated to individual pens and fed a standard diet containing 18% crude protein and 13 MJ ME/kg, until they reached their designated slaughter weight.

The Landrace and Hampshire pigs were slaughtered between 60 and 115 kg and the Duroc Jersey ones between 40 and 115 kg live weight. The right half carcasses were completely dissected using strictly anatomical criteria. Individual muscles were classified into eight anatomical groups (Carden & Goenaga, 1977).

The results were examined by covariance analyses utilizing the allometric equation. Carcass tissue composition was studied using the weight of the dissected side as covariate. When muscle: bone ratio was examined, the weight of total side muscle was used as the independent variable. The growth of different parts of a tissue relative to the corresponding whole tissue was studied.

Concerning carcass composition, there were significant breed differences in muscle and fat contents and in the muscle:bone ratio.

Breed differences were found in muscle distribution. The 6 values of muscle groups 1 (proximal hind limb), 2 (distal hind limb), 6 (distal forelimb) and 7 (muscles connecting forelimb to thorax) were statistically different as were the adjusted means of groups 3 (spinal column), 5 (proximal forelimb) and 8 (muscles connecting forelimb to neck and intrinsic muscles of neck and thorax).

Significant differences were also found in bone weight distribution. Slope values of the tarsals, os coxae, scapula and sternum were statistically different. Adjusted means of tibia-fibula, sacrum, spinal column, radius-ulna, carpals and ribs were also significantly different.

Finally, there were breed effects in the distribution of fat, the relative weight of subcutaneous and of intermuscular fat being statistically different.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 93 , Issue 2 , October 1979 , pp. 271 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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

Briggs, H. M. (1958). Modern Breeds of Livestock. New York: The MaoMillan Company.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. (1963). Relative growth of the musculature of the ox. In Symposium on Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals (ed. Tribe, D. E.), 7–1 to 7–14. Melbourne, Australia: C.S.I.R.O.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. (1963). Estimation of carcass composition: the anatomical approach. In Symposium on Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals (ed. Tribe, D. E.), 4–1 to 4–13. Melbourne, Australia: C.S.I.R.O.Google Scholar
Buttefield, R. M. & Berg, R. T. (1974). Possibilities to change the muscle development of different parts of the body by breeding and feeding. In 1st World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. Madrid (Garsi) 1, 625–633.Google Scholar
Carden, A. E. & Goenaga, P. R. (1977). Effects of restrictions of energy, protein or both on growth and body composition of pigs. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 687–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carden, A. E., Marta, L. & Goenaga, P. R. (1978). Evaluación de la calidad de las canales porcinas en escala comercial. INTA, E.E.B.A. Pergamino Technical Paper 144.Google Scholar
Carden, A. E., Goenaga, P. R. & Schang, M. J. (1978). Efectos de sexo y raza sobre la composición corporal en polios parrilleros. II. Distribución del musculo y de la grasa. INTA, E.E.E.A. Pergamino Technical Paper 146.Google Scholar
Charles, D. D. & Johnson, E. R. (1976). Muscle weight distribution in four breeds of cattle with reference to individual muscles, anatomical groups and wholesale cuts. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 86, 435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cōp, W. A. G. (1974). Protein and fat deposition in pigs in relation to bodyweight gain and feeding level. Mededelingen Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen 74–18.Google Scholar
Davies, A. S. (1974a). A comparison of tissue development in Pietrain and Large White pigs from birth to 64 kg live weight. 1. Growth changes in carcass composition. Animal Production 19, 367–376.Google Scholar
Davies, A. S. (1974b). A comparison of tissue development in Pietrain and Large White pigs from birth to 64 kg live weight. 2. Growth changes in muscle distribution. Animal Production 19, 377–387.Google Scholar
Davies, A. S. & Pryor, W. J. (1977). Growth changes in the distribution of dissectable and intramuscular fat in pigs. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. (1859). The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, 6th ed., ch. 1. Variation under domestication. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. (1974). The choice of selection objectives in meat producing animals. In Meat Animals, Growth and Productivity, pp. 449–462. New York and London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Dumont, B. L., Schmitt, O. & Roy, G. (1969). DéVeloppement musculaire comparé de pores Pietrain et Large White. Eecueil de Medicine Veterinaire, Ecole Alfort 145, 937–947.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R. (1968). Body development and some problems of its evaluation. In Growth and Development of Mammals, pp. 195–211. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R. & Livingstone, R. M. (1972). Modern concepts of growth in pigs. In Pig Production, pp. 143–161. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R., Bichard, M. & Pease, A. (1976). Objectives in pig breeding. Animal Production 23, 365–387.Google Scholar
Jury, K. E., Fourie, P. D. & Kirton, A. H. (1977). Growth and development of sheep. IV. Growth of the musculature. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 20, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. & Smith, R. J. (1976). Variation in lean distribution among steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 87, 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laird, A. K. (1965). Dynamics of relative growth. Growth 29, 249–263.Google ScholarPubMed
Lawrie, R. A. (1972). Meat quality in the pig. In Pig Production, pp. 163–182. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Lister, D. (1976). Effects of nutrition and genetics on the composition of the body. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 35, 351–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lush, J. L. (1945). Animal Breeding Plans. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Mukhoty, H. & Berg, R. T. (1973). Influence of breed and sex on muscle weight distribution of cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81, 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ollivier, L. (1968). Etude du determinisme Mreditaire de l'hypertrophie musculaire du pore de Pietrain. Annales de Zootechnie 17, 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ollivier, L. (1976). Evolutiondesm6thodesdeselection du pore. Bulletin I.T.P. no. 6–76.Google Scholar
Ollivier, L., Sellier, P. & Monin, G. (1975). Déterminisme génétique du syndrome d'hyperthermie maligne chez le pore de Pietrain. Annales de Génétique et Selection Animale 7, 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, O. K. (1972). Problems in the evaluation of carcass quality in pigs. In Simposio Internacional sobre Producción Porcina, Barcelona, Espana, 18–19 05 1972 (mimeograph).Google Scholar
Reid McLellan, C. & Frahm, R. R. (1973). Direct and correlated responses to two-way selection for hindleg muscle system weight in mice. Journal of Animal Science 36, 442–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, R. J. & Berg, R. T. (1971a). Muscle growth and distribution in swine as influenced by livoweight, breed, sex and ration. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 51, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, R. J. & Berg, R. T. (1971b). Fat distribution in swine as influenced by live weight, breed, sex and ration. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 51, 523–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, R. J. & Berg, R. T. (1972). Bone growth and distribution in swine as influenced by live weight, breed, sex and ration. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 52, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouvier, R. & Ricard, F. H. (1967). Etude de la composition anatomique du poulet. II. Variability de la repartition de la viande et de l'os chez des coquelets ‘Bresse-pile’. Annales de Zootechnie 16, 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. (1973). The effect of body-weight loss on the composition of Brahman cross and Africander cross steers. II. Dissected components of the dressed carcass. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 80, 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1957). Statistical Methods, 5th ed.Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Truscott, T. G., Lang, C. P. & Tulloh, N. M. (1976). A comparison of body composition and tissue distribution of Friesian and Angus steers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 87, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uusisalmi, U. (1969). Carcass analysis as an aid in pig breeding. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 19, 214–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uusisalmi, U. (1971). Inheritance in ham and its components in Finnish Landrace and Yorkshire breeds. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 21, 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1978). The relation of livestock breeding to theories of evolution. Journal of Animal Science, 46, 1192–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar