Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:01:20.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal-intrinsic variation in the partitioning of body protein and lipid in growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

P. W. Knap  and
H. Jørgensen
P. W. Knap*
Affiliation:
PIC Group, Fyfield Wick, Kingston Bagpuize, Abingdon OX13 5NA
H. Jørgensen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Danish Institute of Agricultural Science, PO Box 39, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
† Stationed at the Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS. Correspondence to this address.
Get access

Abstract

Body composition in the pig, and its variation, is mostly referred to in terms of body protein and lipid content of the whole body. This study was made to check for animal-intrinsic variation in the partitioning of body protein into protein pools and of body lipid into lipid depots. Results from serial slaughter trials on 316 Danish Landrace and 76 Danish Yorkshire pigs were used to estimate additive genetic and litter-associated variance components for several traits. These traits were total body protein and lipid mass (TOTPROT and TOTLIPD), the proportions of total body protein that are present in the muscles (PROTMUS) or in the (sub-)cutaneous tissue plus bones (connective tissue protein, PROTCON), and the proportions of total body lipid that are present in the (sub-)cutaneous tissue (LIPDSUB), in the muscles (inter- and intramuscular fat, LIPDMUS), or in the bones (LIPDBON). TOTPROT and TOTLIPD were adjusted by regression for body weight; PROTMUS and PROTCON were adjusted for PROTCON, and LIPDSUB, LIPDMUS and LIPDBON were adjusted for TOTLIPD. The pooled estimates (± s.e.) of the degree of genetic determination (the sum of the additive genetic and litter-associated variance components, which approximates the repeatability) of these traits were 0·48 ± 0·19 for TOTPROT, 0·56 ± 0·20 for TOTLIPD, 0·56 ± 0·12 for PROTMUS, 0·57 ± 0·15 for PROTCON, 0·32 ± 0·10 for LIPDMUS, 0·33 ± 0·12 for LIPDSUB, and 0·22 ± 0·10 for LIPDBON. It is concluded that there is animal-intrinsic variation in partitioning of body protein and lipid.

Keywords

Body fatbody proteinheritabilitypigsrepeatability
Type
Growth, development and meat science
Information
Animal Science , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , February 2000 , pp. 29 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

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

Allen, P. 1990. New approaches to measuring body composition in live meat animals. In Reducing fat in meat animals (ed. Wood, J. D. and Fisher, A. V.), pp. 201–254. Elsevier, London.Google Scholar
Andersen, S. and Vestergaard, T. 1984. Estimation of genetic and phenotypic parameters for selection index evaluation in the Danish pig breeding program. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica 34: 231–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bereskin, B. 1983. Performance of selected and control lines of Duroc and Yorkshire pigs and their reciprocal crossbred progeny. Journal of Animal Science 57: 867–878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S. 1960. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Oliver and Boyd, London.Google Scholar
Janss, L. L. G. 1995. MaGGic: subroutines for genetic analyses with Gibbs sampling. Department of Animal Breeding, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Janss, L. L. G., Brascamp, E. W. and Arendonk, J. A. M.van. 1997. Segregation analysis for presence of major genes to affect growth, backfat and litter size in Dutch Meishan crossbreds. Journal of Animal Science 75: 2864–2876.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jørgensen, J. N., Fernandez, J. A., Jørgensen, H. H. and Just, A. 1985a. Anatomical and chemical composition of female pigs and barrows of Danish Landrace related to nutrition. Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 54: 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, H., Just, A. and Fernandez, J. A. 1985b. The influence of diet composition on the amount of gut fill, energy disappearing in caecum-colon and utilization of ME in growing pigs. In Energy metabolism of farm animals (ed. Moe, P. W, Tyrrell, H. F. and Reynolds, P. J.), European Association for Animal Production publication no. 32, pp. 244–247.Google Scholar
Just, A., Jørgensen, H., Fernandez, J. A. and Agergaard, N. 1985. [Investigations about the requirement of essential nutrients for growth in ad libitum fed pigs of Danish Landrace and Large White.] Danish Institute of Animal Science, Copenhagen; beretning 579.Google Scholar
Kinghorn, B. 1995. PedigreeViewer version 2.4. Department of Animal Science, University of New England, Annidale, NSW.Google Scholar
Knap, P. W. 1996. Stochastic simulation of growth in pigs: protein turn-over-dependent relations between body composition and maintenance requirements. Animal Science 63: 549–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knap, P. W. 1999. Simulation of growth in pigs: evaluation of a model to relate thermorégulation to body protein and lipid content and deposition. Animal Science 68: 655–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knap, P. W. 2000. Stochastic simulation of growth in pigs: relations between body composition and maintenance requirements as mediated through protein turn-over and thermorégulation. Animal Science In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knap, P. W. and Schrama, J. W. 1996. Simulation of growth in pigs: approximation of protein turn-over parameters. Animal Science 63: 533–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodde, K. H., Wassmuth, R., Dzapo, V. and Beuing, R. 1983. Die Schätzung maternaler Effekte auf Eigenleistungsmerkmale von Jungebern. Züchtungskunde 55: 203–209.Google Scholar
Lush, J. L. 1940. Intra-sire correlations or regressions of offspring on dam as a method of estimating heritability of characteristics. Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the American Society of Animal Production, pp. 293–301.Google Scholar
McLaren, D. G., Buchanan, D. S. and Johnson, R. K. 1987. Individual heterosis and breed effects for postweaning performance and carcass traits in four breeds or swine. Journal of Animal Science 64: 83–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorensen, D., Andersen, S., Jensen, J., Wang, C. S. and Gianola, D. 1994. Inferences about genetic parameters using the Gibbs sampler. Proceedings of the fifth world congress applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 18, pp. 321–328.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1992. SAS/STAT: changes and enhancements 6.07 Technical report P229. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Steindel, B. and Duniec, H. 1978. [Genetic and environmental variation of some fattening performance and carcass characters in pigs.] Roczniki Naukowe Zootechniki 5: 81–88.Google Scholar
Stewart, T. S. and Schinckel, A. P. 1988. Genetic parameters for swine growth and carcass traits. In Genetics of swine (ed. Young, L. D.), report NC-103, pp. 77–79, 90-105. Roman Hruška Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NB.Google Scholar
Van der Steen, H. A. M. 1983. Maternal and genetic influences on production and reproduction traits in pigs. Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University. Google Scholar