Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:06:50.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A multivariate study of pig carcass growth and composition: 2. Dissected tissues and parts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. G. Evans  and
A. J. Kempster
D. G. Evans
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, P.O. Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK2 2EF
A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, P.O. Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK2 2EF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

An analysis of pig carcass composition was carried out, using data for 11 genetic source populations in the Meat and Livestock Commission's Commercial Pig Evaluation (CPE). The data were from years 3–5 of CPE and a total of 720 carcasses were involved. Weights of dissected tissues and parts were considered simultaneously, and the effects of growth, source population, sex, feeding regimen and time period were incorporated into an integrated model, the multivariate allometric development model.

Canonical variates were constructed for each of the classifying factors except time period, and the residual variation in carcass composition was analysed by principal component analysis. The first canonical variate for source populations was interpreted as a tissue distribution characteristic associated with the distribution of lean between joints in the dorso-cranial and ventro-caudal regions of the carcass. It accounted for 39% of the variation between source populations. The second canonical variate was associated with the ratio of subcutaneous fat to lean in the carcass, and accounted for 20% of the variation between source populations. The results explain the bias found in predicting the proportion of lean tissue in a carcass from subcutaneous fat thickness (P2).

In a graphical display of differences between source populations, nine were shown to be distinct, with only two intermediate and not clearly differentiated from some others. The interpretation of canonical variates and the relative positions of the populations were closely related to those obtained from the analysis of production and grading characteristics in the first paper of the series.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 99 , Issue 3 , December 1982 , pp. 509 - 519
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

Cooley, W. W. & Lohnes, P. R. (1971). Miulivariate Data Analysis New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Evans, D. G. (1982). Canonical and orthogonal discriminant variates in the multivariato general linear model (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Evans, D. G. & Kempster, A. J. (1979 a). The effects of genotype, sex and feeding regimen on pig carcass development. 1. Primary components, tissues and joints. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, D. G. & Kempster, A. J. (1979 b). A comparison of different predictors of the lean content of pig carcasses. 2. Predictors for use in population studies and experiments. Animal Production 28, 97–108.Google Scholar
Evans, D. & Kempster, A. J. (1982). A multivariate study of pig carcass growth and composition. 1. Production and grading characteristics. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 99, 499–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, J. C. (1966) A Q-technique for the calculation of canonical variates. Biometrika 53, 588–590.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. & Harrington, G, (1982). Carcase Evaluation in Livestock Breeding. Production and Marketing. St Albans: Granada Publishing.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. & Evans, D. G. (1979). The effects of genotype, sex and feeding regimen on pig carcass development. 2. Tissue weight distribution and fat partition between depots. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. & Evans, D. G. (1981). The value of shape as a predictor of carcass composition in pigs from different breeding companies. Animal Production 33, 315–324.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission (1980). Commerciul Pig Evaluation: management and procedures. Bletchley, Bucks: Meat and Livestock Commission.Google Scholar
Seal, H. (1964). Multivariate Statistical Analysis for Biologists. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. (1968). Developmental studies of body composition. Animal Breeding Abstracte 36, 167–181.Google Scholar