Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T12:45:00.448Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maintenance feeding of 100 kg pigs: effect on carcass lean and fat yield and on gastrointestinal organ size

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2016

J. C. Pekas
J. C. Pekas
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Clay Center, NE 68933, USA
Get access

Abstract

The study was conducted to test the hypotheses that sustained restriction of food to maintain constant body weight of market-ready pigs, hereafter terminal maintenance (TM), would (1) decrease the size of gastrointestinal and other visceral organs, (2) increase dressing proportion, and (3) increase lean and decrease fat content and improve the lean: fat ratio of carcass. Forty-eight crossbred castrated male pigs (initial body weight, 23·5 kg) were randomly assigned to eight treatment groups (six pigs per group; one pig per pen). Three comparison groups were included. The ad libitum control group (AL) was slaughtered at the target weight, 105 kg. One group was continuously restricted (CR) to 0·8 of the intake by AL and slaughtered at the target weight. The terminally restricted (TR) group was given food ad libitum to 1·1 times the target weight; then food was restricted to effect weight loss to the target weight before slaughter. Five TM groups were given food ad libitum to the target weight; then TM was administered for various periods (7, 14, 21, 28 and 42 days) before slaughter. CR either had no effect or caused enlargement of visceral organs compared with AL. TR caused reduction of viscera, especially of abdominal-digestive organs. TM caused reduction of most viscera organs (0·001 < P < 0·05). Regression analyses indicated that most abdominal organs were reduced 50 to 70 g/kg per 10 days of terminal maintenance. TM and TR also increased carcass weight (P < 0·05). Catabolism associated with reduction of viscera organs may provide nitrogenous substrates to support the continued lean accretion observed during terminal maintenance. The reduced viscera and increased carcass weight combined resulted in increased dressing proportion (P = 0·06). Regression analyses (weight v. TM-days) showed that lean mass increased (71 g/day; P < 0·05) and fat mass decreased (−52 g/day; P < 0·01). Weight of bone and belly did not change. Differential lean gain, lean gain minus fat gain, during TM occurred at a rate of about 120 g/day.

Keywords

abdominal-thoracic organscarcass yielddressing proportionfood restrictionpigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , December 1993 , pp. 455 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

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

Barber, R. S., Braude, R., Mitchell, K. G. and Pittman, R. J. 1972. Effect of level of feed intake on the performance and carcass composition of growing pigs. Animal Production 14: 199–208.Google Scholar
Castell, A. G. 1980. Effects of restricting access to feed, for one or two days per week, on the performance of finishing pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60: 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, D. J. A. and Lawrie, R. A. 1975. Meat. AVI Publishing, Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Fuller, M. F. and Livingstone, R. M. 1978. Effects of progressive feed restriction on the growth and carcass composition of pigs: comparative responses of gilts and castrates. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91: 337–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandhi, R. R. and Strain, J. H. 1980. Evaluation of two methods of feed restriction for growing-finishing hogs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60:149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, A. 1984. Nutritional manipulation and interpretation of body compositional differences in growing swine. Journal of Animal Science 58: 740–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanis, E. 1988. Effect of average daily food intake on production performance in growing pigs. Animal Production 46: 111–122.Google Scholar
Koong, L. J., Nienaber, J. A., Pekas, J. C. and Yen, J. T. 1982. Effects of plane of nutrition on organ size and fasting heat production in pigs. Journal of Nutrition 112: 1638–1642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, G. M., Deren, J. J., Steiger, E. and Zinno, R. 1974. Role of oral intake in maintenance of gut mass and disaccharide activity. Gastroenterology 67: 975–982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lucas, I. A. M. and Calder, A. F. C. 1956. The response of different types of pigs to varying levels of feeding from weaning to bacon weight, with particular reference to carcass quality. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 47: 287–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkel, R. A., Bray, R. W., Grummer, R., Phillips, H. P. H. and Bohstedt, G. 1958. The influence of limited feeding, using high fiber rations, upon growth and carcass characteristics of swine. II. Effects upon carcass characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 17: 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passback, F. L., Rogers, R. W., Diggs, B. G. and Baker, B. 1968. Effects of limited feeding on market hogs: performance and quantitative and qualitative carcass characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 27: 1284–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekas, J. C. 1983. Response of the gastrointestinal tract of swine to gastric superalimentation. Proceedings of the twenty ninth congress of the International Union of Physiological Sciences, Sydney, Australia, vol. 15, p. 302.Google Scholar
Pekas, J. C. 1985. Animal growth during liberation from appetite suppression. Growth 49: 19–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Pekas, J. C. 1986a. Morphometry of the intestine of the pig. I. A method for complete circumsection analysis. Digestive Diseases and Sciences 31: 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekas, J. C. 1986b. Morphometry of the intestine of the pig. II. Circumsection response to feeding schedules. Digestive Diseases and Sciences 30: 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romans, J. R. and Zeigler, P. T. 1974. The meat we eat. Interstate, Danville, Illinois.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1985. SAS user's guide: statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Vanschoubroek, F., De Wilde, R. and Lampo, P. 1967. The quantitative effects of feed restriction in fattening pigs on weight gain, efficiency of feed utilization and backfat thickness. Animal Production 9: 67–74.Google Scholar
Veum, T. L., Pond, W. G., Van Vleck, L. D., Walker, E. F. and Krook, L. 1970. Effect of feeding-fasting interval on finishing pigs: weight gain, feed utilization and physical and chemical carcass measurements. Journal of Animal Science 30: 382–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallace, H. D., Palmer, A. Z., Carpenter, J. W. and Combs, G. E. 1966. Feed restriction of swine during the finishing period. Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, bulletin 706, University of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Tullis, J. B. and Emmans, G. C. 1988. Protein growth in pigs. Animal Production 46: 437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zessin, D. A., Pohl, C. V., Wilson, G. D. and Weir, C. E. 1961. Effect of pre-slaughter dietary stress on the carcass characteristics and palatability of pork. Journal of Animal Science 20: 871–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar