Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:00:21.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of tissue development in Pietrain and Large White pigs from birth to 64 kg live weight 1. Growth changes in carcass composition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. S. Davies
A. S. Davies
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Edinburgh, EH9 1QH
Get access

Summary

Female pigs of the Pietrain and Large White breeds, 18 from each, selected to form a logarithmic weight range, were dissected into their major carcass tissues. Relative to carcass growth, fat was the fastest developing tissue in both breeds; fat and muscle grew at a rate higher, and bone at a rate lower, than the carcass. The growth of bone relative to carcass growth was faster in the Large White; differences between breeds in the growth of muscle and fat were not significant. Muscle weights and muscle: bone ratios, estimated at the same empty body weight, were greater for the Pietrain over the entire body weight range studied. There was no significant difference in muscle: bone ratio between the Large Whites used in the present study and those dissected by McMeekan over 30 years previously. The breed difference in the proportion of muscle and bone at the same body weight is attributed to a greater maturity of the Pietrain.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , December 1974 , pp. 367 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1974

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

REFERENCES

Barr, D. R. 1969. Using confidence intervals to test hypotheses J. Qual. Technol. 1: 256–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1966. Muscle: bone ratio and fat percentage as measures of beef carcass composition. Anim. Prod. 8: 1–11.Google Scholar
Boccard, R. and Dumont, B. L. 1970. fitude de l'accroissement relatif de la musculature en fonction de la vitesse de croissance corporelle chez l'agneau (Ovis aries). C. r. Seanc. Soc. Biol. 164: 1251–1253.Google Scholar
Boccard, R., Leguelte, P. and Arnoux, J. 1964. Influence de la vitesse de croissance sur la valeur des coefficients d'allometrie des tissus corporels de l'agneau. C. r. hebd Séanc. Acad. Sci., Paris 258: 1908–1909.Google Scholar
Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and Growth. Chapter 17. Linear growth, form and function, pp. 575-663. Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Charpentier, J. 1968. Glycogenolyse post mortem du muscle longissimus dorsi de pore. Annls Zootech. 17: 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charpentier, J., Monin, G. and Ollivier, L. 1971. Correlations between carcass characteristics and meat quality in Large White pigs. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Condition and Meat Quality of Pigs, Zeist, 1971 (ed. HesseldeHeer, J. C. M., Schmidt, G. R., Sybesma, W., Wai, P. G. van der), pp. 255–260. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Davies, A. S. 1973 Postnatal development of porcine skeletal muscle. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Diem, K. and Lentner, C. (Eds.) 1970. Documenta Geigy, Scientific Tables. Statistical methods, pp. 145–198. 7th ed.J. R. Geigy, Basle.Google Scholar
Dumont, B. L. and Boccard, R. 1967. Critéres modernes d'amelioration génétique des populations bovines dans le monde. Le rapport muscle/os, critére de sélection des bovins de boucherie. Atti della II Simposio Internationale di Zootechnia, Milano, 1967, pp. 149–155.Google Scholar
Dumont, B. L., Schmitt, O. and Roy, G. 1969. Developpement musculaire compare de pores Pietrain et Large-White. Reel Mid. vet. Ec. Alfort 145: 937–947.Google Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H., McDonald, I. and Fowler, V. R. 1964. The effect of plane of nutrition on the carcasses of pigs and lambs when variations in fat content are excluded. Anim. Prod. 6: 141–154.Google Scholar
Fourie, P. D., Kirton, A. H. and Jury, K. E. 1970. Growth and development of sheep. II. Effect of breed and sex on the growth and carcass composition of the Southdown and the Romney and their cross. N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 13: 753–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, V. R. and Livingstone, R. M. 1972. Modern concepts of growth in pigs. In Pig Production. University of Nottingham 18th Easter School in Agricultural Science, 1971 (ed. Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 143–161. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1924. Constant differential growth-ratios and their significance. Nature, Lond. 114: 895–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, M. D., Forrest, J. C., Sink, J. D. and Briskey, E. J. 1968. Endocrine related stress responses and muscle properties of swine. J Anim. Sci. 27: 1247–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayer, C. and Heusner, A. 1964. Éutude comparative du metabolisme énergétique dans la serie animale. J Physiol., Paris 56: 489–524.Google Scholar
Lean, I. J., Curran, M. K., Duckworth, J. E. and Holmes, W. 1972. Studies on Belgian Pietrain pigs. I. A comparison of Pietrain, Landrace and Pietrain Landrace crosses in growth, carcass characteristics and meat quality. Anim. Prod. 15: 1–9.Google Scholar
Lister, D. and Ratcliff, P. W. 1971. The effects of pre-slaughter injection of magnesium sulphate on glycolysis and meat quality in the pig. In Proc. 2nd int. Symp. Condition and Meat Quality of Pigs, Zeist, 1971 (ed. Hessel-deHeer, J. C. M., Schmidt, G. R., Sybesma, W., Wai, P. G. van der), pp. 139–144. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
MacDougall, D. B. and Disney, J. G. 1967. Quality characteristics of pork with special reference to Pietrain, Pietrain × Landrace and Landrace pigs at different weights. J Fd Technol. 2: 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. 1940a. Growth and development in the pig, with special reference to carcass quality characters. I. Age changes in growth and development. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 30: 276–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. 1940b. Growth and development in the pig, with special reference to carcass quality characters. II. The influence of the plane of nutrition on growth and development. J agric. Sci., Camb. 30: 387–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. 1940c. Growth and development in the pig, with special reference to carcass quality characters. III. Effect of the plane of nutrition on the form and composition of the bacon pig. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 30: 511–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukhoty, H. and Berg, R. T. 1971. Influence of breed and sex on the allometric growth patterns of major bovine tissues. Anim. Prod. 13: 219–227.Google Scholar
Pálsson, H. and Verges, J. B. 1952. Effects of the plane of nutrition on growth and the development of carcass quality in lambs. I. The effects of high and low planes of nutrition at different ages. II. Effects on lambs of 30 lb carcass weight. J agric. Sci., Camb. 42: 1–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, R. J. and Berg, R. T. 1971. Tissue development in swine as influenced by liveweight, breed, sex and ration. Can. J Anim. Sci. 51: 31–39.Google Scholar
Tulloh, N. M. 1964. The carcass compositions of sheep, cattle and pigs as functions of body weight. In Carcase Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals. Technical Conference, University of Melbourne, 1963 (ed. Tribe, D. E.), pp. 5–1 to 5-30. CSIRO, East Melbourne.Google Scholar
Vold, E., Steinhauf, D. and Weniger, J. H. 1965. Postmortale Veranderungen der Fleischbeschaffenheit beim Schwein, zugleich ein weiterer Beitrag zur Methodik der Fleischqualitatsuntersuchung. Fleischwirtschaft 45: 938–943.Google Scholar