Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:22:54.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of average litter weight in pigs on growth performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of the offspring as depending on birth weight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2013

C. E. Pardo ,
M. Kreuzer  and
G. Bee
C. E. Pardo
Affiliation:
Agroscope Liebefeld-Posieux, Research Station ALP, 1725 Posieux, Switzerland ETH Zurich, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Universitätstrasse 2, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
M. Kreuzer
Affiliation:
ETH Zurich, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Universitätstrasse 2, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
G. Bee*
Affiliation:
Agroscope Liebefeld-Posieux, Research Station ALP, 1725 Posieux, Switzerland
*
†E-mail: giuseppe.bee@agroscope.admin.ch
Get access

Abstract

Offspring born from normal litter size (10 to 15 piglets) but classified as having lower than average birth weight (average of the sow herd used: 1.46 ± 0.2 kg; mean ± s.d.) carry at birth negative phenotypic traits normally associated with intrauterine growth restriction, such as brain-sparing and impaired myofiber hyperplasia. The objective of the study was to assess long-term effects of intrauterine crowding by comparing postnatal performance, carcass characteristics and pork quality of offspring born from litters with higher (>1.7 kg) or lower (<1.3 kg) than average litter birth weight. From a population of multiparous Swiss Large White sows (parity 2 to 6), 16 litters with high (H = 1.75 kg) or low (L = 1.26 kg) average litter birth weight were selected. At farrowing, two female pigs and two castrated pigs were chosen from each litter: from the H-litters those with the intermediate (HI = 1.79 kg) and lowest (HL = 1.40 kg) birth weight, and from L-litters those with the highest (LH = 1.49 kg) and intermediate (LI = 1.26 kg) birth weight. Average birth weight of the selected HI and LI piglets differed (P < 0.05), whereas birth weight of the HL- and LH-piglets were similar (P > 0.05). These pigs were fattened in group pen and slaughtered at 165 days of age. Pre-weaning performance of the litters and growth performance, carcass and meat quality traits of the selected pigs were assessed. Number of stillborn and pig mortality were greater (P < 0.05) in L- than in H-litters. Consequently, fewer (P < 0.05) piglets were weaned and average litter weaning weight decreased by 38% (P < 0.05). The selected pigs of the L-litters displayed catch-up growth during the starter and grower–finisher periods, leading to similar (P > 0.05) slaughter weight at 165 days of age. However, HL-gilts were more feed efficient and had leaner carcasses than HI-, LH- and LI-pigs (birth weight class × gender interaction P < 0.05). Meat quality traits were mostly similar between groups. The marked between-litter birth weight variation observed in normal size litters had therefore no evident negative impact on growth potential and quality of pigs from the lower birth weight group.

Keywords

litter birth weightlitter sizepostnatal growthcarcass characteristicspig
Type
Farming systems and environment
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 11 , November 2013 , pp. 1884 - 1892
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Agroscope Liebefeld Posieux Research Station (ALP) 2012. Fütterungsempfehlungen und Nährwerttabellen für Schweine [Feeding recommendations and nutrient tables for pigs]. Agroscope, Posieux, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Bauer, R, Walter, B, Brust, P, Fuchtner, F, Zwiener, U 2003. Impact of asymmetric intrauterine growth restriction on organ function in newborn piglets. European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 110, S40–S49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beaulieu, AD, Aalhus, JL, Williams, NH, Patience, JF 2010. Impact of piglet birth weight, birth order, and litter size on subsequent growth performance, carcass quality, muscle composition, and eating quality of pork. Journal of Animal Science 88, 2767–2778.Google Scholar
Bee, G, Gebert, S, Messikommer, R 2002. Effect of dietary energy supply and fat source on the fatty acid pattern of adipose and lean tissues and lipogenesis in the pig. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1564–1574.Google Scholar
Bee, G, Jacot, S, Guex, G, Herzog, W 2004. Effects of two supplementation levels of linseed combined with CLA or tallow on meat quality traits and fatty acid profile of adipose tissue and longissimus muscle in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 82, 134–134.Google Scholar
Bérard, J, Bee, G 2010. Effects of dietary l-arginine supplementation to gilts during early gestation on foetal survival, growth and myofiber formation. Animal 4, 1680–1687.Google Scholar
Bérard, J, Kreuzer, M, Bee, G 2008. Effect of litter size and birth weight on growth, carcass and pork quality, and their relationship to postmortem proteolysis. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2357–2368.Google Scholar
Bérard, J, Kreuzer, M, Bee, G 2010. In large litters birth weight and gender is decisive for growth performance but less for carcass and pork quality traits. Meat Science 86, 845–851.Google Scholar
Dwyer, CM, Fletcher, JM, Stickland, NC 1993. Muscle cellularity and postnatal growth in the pig. Journal of Animal Science 71, 3339–3343.Google Scholar
Ellis, M, Webb, AJ, Avery, PJ, Brown, I 1996. The influence of terminal sire genotype, sex, slaughter weight, feeding regime and slaughter-house on growth performance and carcass and meat quality in pigs and on the organoleptic properties of fresh pork. Animal Science 62, 521–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fix, JS, Cassady, JP, Holl, JW, Herring, WO, Culbertson, MS, See, MT 2010. Effect of piglet birth weight on survival and quality of commercial market swine. Livestock Science 132, 98–106.Google Scholar
Foxcroft, GR, Bee, G, Dixon, W, Hahn, M, Harding, J, Patterson, J, Putman, T, Sarmento, S, Smit, M, Tse, W-Y, Town, SC 2007. Consequences of selection for litter size on piglet development. In Paradigms in pig science (ed. J Wiseman, MA Varley, S McOrist and B Kemp), pp. 207–229. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Gondret, F, Lefaucheur, L, Juin, H, Louveau, I, Lebret, B 2006. Low birth weight is associated with enlarged muscle fiber area and impaired meat tenderness of the longissimus muscle in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 84, 93–103.Google Scholar
Gondret, F, Lefaucheur, L, Louveau, I, Lebret, B, Pichodo, X, Le Cozler, Y 2005. Influence of piglet birth weight on postnatal growth performance, tissue lipogenic capacity and muscle histological traits at market weight. Livestock Production Science 93, 137–146.Google Scholar
Honikel, KO 1998. Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat. Meat Science 49, 447–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leenhouwers, JI, van der Lende, T, Knol, EF 1999. Analysis of stillbirth in different lines of pig. Livestock Production Science 57, 243–253.Google Scholar
Milligan, BN, Fraser, D, Kramer, DL 2002. Within-litter birth weight variation in the domestic pig and its relation to pre-weaning survival, weight gain, and variation in weaning weights. Livestock Production Science 76, 181–191.Google Scholar
Nissen, PM, Oksbjerg, N 2011. Birth weight and postnatal dietary protein level affect performance, muscle metabolism and meat quality in pigs. Animal 5, 1382–1389.Google Scholar
Nissen, PM, Jorgensen, PF, Oksbjerg, N 2004. Within-litter variation in muscle fiber characteristics, pig performance, and meat quality traits. Journal of Animal Science 82, 414–421.Google Scholar
Pardo, C, Kreuzer, M, Bee, G 2010. Relationship between average litter weight and intralitter weight variability on myogenesis in newborn piglets. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 364.Google Scholar
Poore, KR, Fowden, AL 2004. The effects of birth weight and postnatal growth patterns on fat depth and plasma leptin concentrations in juvenile and adult pigs. The Journal of Physiology Online 558, 295–304.Google Scholar
Quesnel, H, Brossard, L, Valancogne, A, Quiniou, N 2008. Influence of some sow characteristics on within-litter variation of piglet birth weight. Animal 2, 1842–1849.Google Scholar
Quiniou, N, Dagorn, J, Gaudré, D 2002. Variation of piglets’ birth weight and consequences on subsequent performance. Livestock Production Science 78, 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeldt, C, Kuhn, G 2006. Consequences of birth weight for postnatal growth performance and carcass quality in pigs as related to myogenesis. Journal of Animal Science 84, E113–E123.Google Scholar
Rehfeldt, C, Tuchscherer, A, Hartung, M, Kuhn, G 2008. A second look at the influence of birth weight on carcass and meat quality in pigs. Meat Science 78, 170–175.Google Scholar
Suisag 2012. Zahlen und Projekte 2011. Retrieved January 23, 2013, from http://www.suisag.ch/Dokumente/tabid/111/Default.aspx.Google Scholar
Town, SC, Patterson, JL, Pereira, CZ, Gourley, G, Foxcroft, GR 2005. Embryonic and fetal development in a commercial dam-line genotype. Animal Reproduction Science 85, 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallet, JL, Freking, BA 2006. Changes in fetal organ weights during gestation after selection for ovulation rate and uterine capacity in swine. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2338–2345.Google Scholar
van der Waaij, EH, Hazeleger, W, Soede, NM, Laurenssen, BFA, Kemp, B 2010. Effect of excessive, hormonally induced intrauterine crowding in the gilt on fetal development on day 40 of pregnancy. Journal of Animal Science 88, 2611–2619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, G, Bazer, FW, Wallace, JM, Spencer, TE 2006. Board-invited review: intrauterine growth retardation: implications for the animal sciences. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2316–2337.Google Scholar
Zhao, X, Mo, D, Li, A, Gong, W, Xiao, S, Zhang, Y, Qin, L, Niu, Y, Guo, Y, Liu, X, Cong, P, He, Z, Wang, C, Li, J, Chen, Y 2011. Comparative analyses by sequencing of transcriptomes during skeletal muscle development between pig breeds differing in muscle growth rate and fatness. PLoS One 6, e19774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed