Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T00:52:48.258Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of protein nutrition in early life on growth and development of the pig

2. Effects on the cellularity of muscle and subcutaneous adipose tissue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

R. G. Campbell  and
A. C. Dunkin
R. G. Campbell
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
A. C. Dunkin
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The effects of feeding either high-protein (HP) or low-protein (LP) diets between 1·8 and 15 kg live weight (LW) and a low-energy (LE) or high-energy (HE) intake subsequently on the cellularity of muscle and adipose tissue in pigs growing to 75 kg LW were investigated.

2. The effects of the nutritional treatments on muscle tissue were assessed from the weight and DNA content of the m. adductor. For adipose tissue the total DNA content and fat cell size of the subcutaneous adipose tissue contained in the left shoulder joint were determined.

3. Feeding the LP diets in early life reduced the weight and DNA content of the m. adductor (P < 0·01) and increased fat cell size (P < 0·01) at 15 kg LW.

4. Subsequent to 15 kg there was an almost linear increase in muscle DNA with increasing LW, and the difference between pigs from the initial protein treatments progressively diminished and was no longer apparent at 60 kg LW.

5. At 30 kg LW, pigs given the LP diets before 15 kg LW contained less DNA in the subcutaneous adipose tissue from the shoulder joint (P < 0·01) and had larger fat cells (P < 0·05) than pigs given the HP diets initially. However, adipose DNA and fat cell size increased with increasing LW and the differences resulting from the initial protein treatments progressively diminished. On the LE and HE treatments subsequent to 15 kg these differences were no longer evident at 45 and 60 kg respectively.

6. Pigs given the HE intake subsequent to 15 kg, contained less DNA in muscle tissue (P < 0·05) at 60 and 75 kg LW and had larger fat cells (P < 0·05) at 45, 60 and 75 kg LW, than pigs on the LE treatment.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , November 1983 , pp. 619 - 626
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1983

References

Allen, R. E., Merkel, R. A. & Young, R. B. (1979). Journal of Animal Science 49, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, H. A. & Masoro, E. J. (1977). Nature 266, 62–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, R. G. & Dunkin, A. C. (1980). Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 13, 131–133.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. G. & Dunkin, A. C. (1983). British Journal of Nutrition 50, 605–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbreath, R. L. & Trout, J. R. (1973). Journal of Nutrition 203, 1637–1645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, J. & Han, P. W. (1969). Journal of Lipid Research 10, 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, J. & Knittle, J. L. (1970). Federation Proceedings 29, 1516–1521.Google Scholar
Hood, R. L. & Allen, C. E. (1977). Journal of Lipid Research 18, 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirtland, J. & Gurr, M. I. (1980). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 95, 325–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y. B., Kauffman, R. G. & Grummer, R. H. (1973 a). Journal of Animal Science 37, 1312–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y. B., Kauffman, R. G. & Grummer, R. H. (1973 b). Journal of Animal Science 37, 1319–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, G. A., Sarker, N. K. & Friend, B. W. (1977). Journal of Animal Science 45, 1346–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. F. & Donohue, D. C. (1972). Analytical Biochemistry 47, 562–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. J., Ezekwe, M., Herbein, J. H., Sherritt, G. W., Gobble, J. L. & Ziegler, J. H. (1974). Journal of Animal Science 39, 521–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, F. P. (1968). American Journal of Anatomy 122, 555–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oscai, L. B., Bibirak, S. P., Dubach, F. B., McGarr, J. A. & Spirakis, C. N. (1974). American Journal of Physiology 227, 901–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oscai, L. B., Spirakis, C. N. & Wolff, C. A. (1972). Journal of Lipid Research 13, 588–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. W. (1969). Growth 33, 231–240.Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, U., Sjostrom, L. & Bjorntorp, P. (1972). Journal of Lipid Research 13, 822–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. P., Enser, M. B. & Restall, D. J. (1978). Animal Production 27, 1–10.Google Scholar