Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:28:10.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimation of whole body lipid mass in finishing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

M. Kloareg ,
J. Noblet  and
J. Van Milgen
M. Kloareg
Affiliation:
UMR Systèmes dˇElevage, Nutrition Animale et Humaine, INRA, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France
J. Noblet
Affiliation:
UMR Systèmes dˇElevage, Nutrition Animale et Humaine, INRA, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France
J. Van Milgen*
Affiliation:
UMR Systèmes dˇElevage, Nutrition Animale et Humaine, INRA, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France
*
†E-mail: jaap.vanmilgen@rennes.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

Most nutritional pig growth models are based on the deposition of whole body protein (P) and lipid (L) mass. Chemical analysis of the whole animal is the best method to determine body composition. However, this method is expensive, time consuming and the carcass is lost. Alternatively, P and L may be estimated using simple indicators that should be precise and easily accessible. Although empty body weight (EBW) is a good indicator for P (through the strong relation between water and P), L is more difficult to estimate. This study was carried out to evaluate the relationship between simple carcass measurements and L. Measurements included backfat thickness in vivo and at slaughter in the hot and cold carcass and the weight of carcass, organs and primal cuts. To maximize variations in adiposity a total of 30 females and barrows from two genotypes (Piétrain×(Landrace×Large White) and Large White) were slaughtered at body weights typically used in Europe (i.e. 90 to 150 kg) and ground for chemical analysis. Backfat mass (in combination with EBW) was the best indicator for L (L (kg)=0·0590×EBW (kg)+2·99×backfat mass (kg), R2=0·96). Different backfat thickness measurements were highly correlated and appeared reasonable indicators for total backfat mass. Backfat thickness measured in the hot carcass between 3rd and 4th last lumbar vertebra at 8 cm from the mid line was the second best indicator for L (L=(0·0855+0·0073×backfat thickness)×EBW, R2=0·94). On average, 18% of total body lipids were located in the backfat. Although these equations can be used to obtain a reasonable estimate of whole body lipid mass, a significant genotype effect remained. Differences between genotypes in the partitioning of lipids between different tissues suggest that the quantification of an external lipid depot alone is insufficient to precisely estimate whole-body lipid mass across genotypes.

Keywords

backfatbody compositionlipidspigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 241 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

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

Bibby, J. and Toutenburg, H. 1977. Prediction and improved estimation in linear models. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
Cisneros, F., Ellis, M., Miller, K. D., Novakofski, J., Wilson, E. R. and McKeith, F. K. 1996. Comparison of transverse and longitudinal real-time ultrasound scans for prediction of lean cut yields and fat-free lean content in live pigs. Journal of Animal Science 74: 2566–2576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daumas, G., Causeur, D., Dhorne, T. and Schollhammer, E. 1998. The new pig carcass grading methods in France. International Congress of Meat Science and Technology 44: 948–949.Google Scholar
De Lange, C. F. M. 1995. Framework for a simplified model to demonstrate principles of nutrient partitioning for growth in the pig. In Modelling growth in the pig (ed. Moughan, P. J.Verstegen, M. W. A. and Visse-Reyneveld, M. I.), pp. 71–85. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Doeschl, A. B., Green, D., Whittemore, C., Schofield, C., Fisher, A. V. and Knap, P. W. 2004. The relationship between the body shape of living pigs and their carcass morphology and composition. Animal Science 79: 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Souza, D. N., Pethick, D. W., Dunshea, F. R., Suster, D., Pluske, J. R. and Mullan, B. P. 2004. The pattern of fat and lean muscle tissue deposition differs in the different pork primal cuts of female pigs during the finisher growth phase. Livestock Production Science 91: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, iPlanas, F. 2002. L'us d'aparells d'ultrasons per a determinar in vivo la composicio corporal de porcs d'engreix. M. Sc. thesis, Treball Final de Carrera, Universitat de Girona, Spain.Google Scholar
Hopkins, W. G. 2000. In A new view of statistics. Internet Society for Sport Science. http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/logtrans.html.Google Scholar
Hulsegge, B., Mateman, G., Merkus, G. and Walstra, P. 1998. Choice of probing site for classification of live pigs using ultrasonic measurements. Animal Science 68: 641–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulsegge, B., Merkus, G. and Walstra, P. 2000. Prediction of lean meat proportion based on ultrasonic backfat thickness measurements of live pigs. Animal Science 71: 253–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulsegge, B., Sterrenburg, P. and Merkus, G. 1994. Prediction of lean meat production in pig carcasses and in the major cuts from multiple measurements made with the Hennessy grading probe. Animal Production 59: 119–123.Google Scholar
Institut Technique du Porc. 1990. The Dutch normalised procedure. Techni-porc 13: 44–45.Google Scholar
Johnson, L., Miller, M., Haydon, K. and Reagan, J. 1990. The prediction of percentage of fat in pork carcasses. Journal of Animal Science 68: 4185–4192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karege, C. 1991. Influence de l'âge et du sexe sur l'utilisation de l'énergie et la composition corporelle chez le porc en croissance. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Montpellier II, France.Google Scholar
Kouba, M., Bonneau, M. and Noblet, J. 1999. Relative development of subcutaneous, intermuscular, and kidney fat in growing pigs with different body compositions. Journal of Animal Science 77: 622–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Dividich, J., Noblet, J., Herpin, P., Van Milgen, J. and Quiniou, N. 1998. Thermoregulation. In Progress in pig science (ed. Wiseman, J.Varley, M. A. and Chadwick, J. P.), pp. 229–264. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Lizardo, R., Van Milgen, J., Mourot, J., Noblet, J. and Bonneau, M. 2002. A nutritional model of fatty acid composition in the growing- finishing pig. Livestock Production Science 75: 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcoux, M., Bernier, J. and Pomar, C. 2003. Estimation of Canadian and European lean yields and composition of pig carcasses by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Meat Science 63: 359–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, A., Conway, J. and Potts, W. 1996. Body composition analysis of pigs by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Journal of Animal Science 74: 2663–2671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rook, A., Ellis, M. and Whittemore, C. 1987. Relationships between whole-body chemical composition, physically dissected carcass parts and backfat measurements in pigs. Animal Production 44: 263–273.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D., Perez, J. -M. and Tran, G. 2002. Tables de composition et de valeur nutritive des matières premières destinées aux animaux d'élevage. INRA éditions, Association Française de ZootechnieGoogle Scholar
Shields, R., Mahan, D. and Cahill, V. 1983. A comparison of methods for estimating carcass and empty body composition in swine from birth to 145 kg. Journal of Animal Science 57: 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 2000. SAS/STAT user's guide, version 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Suster, D., Leury, B., Ostrowska, E., Butler, K., Kerton, D., Wark, J. and Dunshea, F. 2003. Accuracy of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), weight and P2 back fat to predict whole body and carcass composition in pigs within and across experiments. Livestock Production Science 84: 231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swensen, K., Ellis, M., Brewer, M. S., Novakofski, J. and McKeith, F. K. 1998. Pork carcass composition. II. Use of indicator cuts for predicting carcass composition. Journal of Animal Science 76: 2405–2414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tullis, J. 1981. Protein growth in pigs. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Van Milgen, J., Quiniou, N. and Noblet, J. 2000. Modelling the relation between energy intake and protein and lipid deposition in growing pigs. Animal Science 71: 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. 1983. Development of recommended energy and protein allowances for growing pigs. Agricultural Systems 11: 159–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. and Green, D. 2002. The description of the rate of protein and lipid growth in pigs in relation to liveweight. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 138: 415–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Green, D., Wood, J., Fisher, A. V. and Schofield, C. 2003. Physical and chemical composition of the carcass of three different types of pigs grown from 25 to 115 kg live weight. Animal Science 77: 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Kerr, J. C. and Cameron, N. D. 1995. An approach to prediction of feed intake in growing pigs using simple body measurements. Agricultural Systems 47: 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Tullis, J. and Emmans, G. 1988. Protein growth in pigs. Animal Production 46: 437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J., Enser, M., Whittington, F., Moncrieff, C. and Kempster, A. 1989. Backfat composition in pigs: differences between fat thickness groups and sexes. Livestock Production Science 22: 351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J., Whekhan, O., Ellis, M., Smith, W. and Laird, R. 1983. Effects of selection for low backfat thickness in pigs on the sites of tissue deposition in the body. Animal Production 36: 387–389.Google Scholar
Youssao, I., Verleyen, V. and Leroy, P. 2002a. Prediction of carcass lean content by real-time ultrasound in Pietrain and negative stress Pietrain. Animal Science 75: 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Youssao, I., Verleyen, V., Michaux, C. and Leroy, P. 2002b. A comparison of the Fat Lean Meter (CGM), the ultrasonic device Pie Medical 200 and the Piglog 105 for estimation of the lean meat proportion in Pietrain carcasses. Livestock Production Science 78: 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar