Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-fg9bn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-04T18:31:27.700Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth characteristics and carcass composition of pigs with known genotypes for stress susceptibility over a weight range of 70 to 120 Kg

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. L. Aalhus ,
S. D. M. Jones ,
W. M. Robertson ,
A. K. W. Tong  and
A. P. Sather
J. L. Aalhus
Affiliation:
Red Meat and Beef Production Section, Agriculture Canada Research Station, Bag 5000, Lacombe, Alberta T0C ISO, Canada
S. D. M. Jones
Affiliation:
Red Meat and Beef Production Section, Agriculture Canada Research Station, Bag 5000, Lacombe, Alberta T0C ISO, Canada
W. M. Robertson
Affiliation:
Red Meat and Beef Production Section, Agriculture Canada Research Station, Bag 5000, Lacombe, Alberta T0C ISO, Canada
A. K. W. Tong
Affiliation:
Red Meat and Beef Production Section, Agriculture Canada Research Station, Bag 5000, Lacombe, Alberta T0C ISO, Canada
A. P. Sather
Affiliation:
Red Meat and Beef Production Section, Agriculture Canada Research Station, Bag 5000, Lacombe, Alberta T0C ISO, Canada
Get access

Abstract

A total of 805 Lacombe pigs of different genotype with respect to halothane sensitivity (halothane positive, nn = 205; heterozygote, Nn = 214; halothane negative, NN = 386) were slaughtered over a range in live weight (70 to 120 kg) to assess tissue growth patterns using the allometric equation (y = aXh). The nn genotype was older at slaughter than the NN genotype, but pigs from each genotype were killed over a similar weight range. The relative growth of the primal cuts was influenced by genotype, with nn pigs having a lower coefficient for the bottom shoulder (picnic) and a higher coefficient for the belly. The relative growth of bone was similar for genotypes (P > 0·05) but the relative growth of lean was lower and the relative growth of total fat and depot fat (subcutaneous and intermuscular) was higher for the nn genotype compared with the Nn and NN genotypes. On a within-tissue basis, the relative growth of the tissues in each primal was similar, except for the ham, where the relative growth of lean was higher for nn pigs compared with the two other genotypes. Small differences in tissue distribution were evident, but seldom exceeded 30 g/kg. Although nn pigs had a higher lean content and higher lean: bone ratio than Nn or NN pigs at similar live weights, their relative advantage in composition decreased with increasing live weight.

Keywords

carcass compositiongenotypesgrowthpigs

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 347 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1991

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Berg, R. T. and Buttereield, R. M. 1976. New Concepts of Cattle Growth. John Wiley, Toronto.Google Scholar
Brody, S. 1964. Bioenergetics and Growth. Hafner Publishing., New York.Google Scholar
Carlson, J. P., Christian, L. L., Kuhlers, D. L. and Rasmusen, B. A. 1980. Influence of the porcine stress syndrome on production and carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 50: 21–28.CrossRefGoogle 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
Fortin, A., Wood, J. D. and Whelehan, O. P. 1987a. Breed and sex effects on the development and proportions of muscle, fat and bone in pigs. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 108: 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortin, A., Wood, J. D. and Whelehan, O. P. 1987b. Breed and sex effects on the development, distribution of muscle, fat and bone, and the partition of fat in pigs. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 108: 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. 1932. Growth and Development of Mutton Qualities in the Sheep. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. 1981. Carcass and meat quality of pigs with known genotypes for halothane susceptibility. In Porcine Stress and Meat Quality — Causes and Possible Solutions to the Problems (ed. Frøystein, T., Slinde, E. and Standal, N.), pp. 267–273. Agricultural Food Research Society, Ås, Norway.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. and Barton-Gade, P. A. 1985. Performance and carcass characteristics of pigs with known genotypes for halothane susceptibility. In Stress Susceptibility and Meat Quality in Pigs (ed. Ludvigson, J. B.), Publication, European Association for Animal Production, No. 33, pp. 81–87.Google Scholar
Jones, S. D. M., Murray, A. C., Sather, A. P. and Robertson, W. M. 1988. Body proportions and carcass composition of pigs with known genotypes for stress susceptibility fasted for different periods of time prior to slaughter. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 68: 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S. D. M., Richmond, R. J., Price, M. A. and Berg, R. T. 1980. Effects of breed and sex on the patterns of fat deposition and distribution in swine. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60: 223–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A. H., Fredeen, H. T., Weiss, G. M., Fortin, A. and Sim, D. 1981. Yield of trimmed pork product in relation to weight and backfat thickness of the carcass. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 61: 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, R. J., Jones, S. D. M., Price, M. A. and Berg, R. T. 1979. Effects of breed and sex on the relative growth and distribution of bone in pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 59: 471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sather, A. P. and Murray, A. C. 1989. The development of a halothane-sensitive line of pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 69: 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, S. R. 1971. Linear Models. John Wiley, Toronto.Google Scholar
Sehested, E., Syrstad, O., Frøystein, T. and Standal, N. 1988. Effects of halothane genotype on production traits in Norwegian Landrace pigs. Ada Agriculturae Scandinavica 38: 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Basics and Statistics. 5th ed SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Webb, A. J., Carden, A. E., Smith, C. and Imlah, P. 1982. Porcine stress syndrome in pig breeding. Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Madrid, Vol. 5, pp. 588–608. Editorial Garsi, Madrid.Google Scholar
Webb, A. J., Southwood, O. L. and Simpson, S. P. 1987. The halothane test in improving meat quality. In Evaluation and Control of Meat Quality in Pigs (ed. Tarrant, P. V., Eikelenboom, G. and Monin, G.), pp. 297–315. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, Massachusetts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar