Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:50:52.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses in carcass composition to divergent selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

N. D. Cameron  and
M. K. Curran
N. D. Cameron
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
M. K. Curran
Affiliation:
Wye College, University of London, Wye, Kent TN25 5AH
Get access

Abstract

Carcass composition was measured after six generations of divergent selection for lean growth rate on ad-libitum and restricted feeding, lean food conversion and daily food intake in populations of Large White (LW) and Landrace (LR) pigs. There were 161 half-carcass dissections in LW pigs and for LR pigs, a double sampling procedure combined information from 53 half-carcass and 53 hand joint dissections. The performance test started at 30 kg and finished at 85 kg with ad-libitum feeding and after 84 days with restricted feeding, and pigs were slaughtered at the end of the test.

In the LR population, selection for lean growth on restricted feeding increased carcass lean content (605 v. 557 (s.e.d. 19) g/kg), but there were no significant responses in carcass lean content with the selection strategies on adlibitum feeding. Selection for lean food conversion and high lean growth on restricted feeding reduced carcass fat content (201 v. 241 (s.e.d. 14) and 150 v. 218 (s.e.d. 18) g/kg), but selection for high lean growth rate with adlibitum increased carcass fat content (212 v. 185 (s.e.d. 11) g/kg). Responses in carcass composition were not significant with selection on daily food intake.

In the LW population, selection for high lean food conversion or low daily food intake increased carcass lean content (539 v. 494 and 543 v. 477 (s.e.d. 11) g/kg) to a greater extent than selection on lean growth rate (509 v. 475 g/kg). Responses in carcass fat content were equal and opposite to those in carcass lean content. Selection on lean growth rate with ad-libitum feeding increased lean tissue growth rate (LTGR) (491 v. 422 (s.e.d. 23) g/day), but there was no change in fat tissue growth rate (FTGR) (206 v. 217 (s.e.d. 15) g/day). In contrast, FTGR was reduced with selection on lean food conversion (169 v. 225 g/day), but LTGR was not significantly increased (520 v. 482 g/day). Selection for lean growth rate with restricted feeding combined the desirable strategies of lean growth rate on adlibitum feeding and lean food conversion, as LTGR was increased (416 v. 359 (s.e.d. 12) g/day) and FTGR decreased (126 v. 156 (s.e.d. 7) g/day). The preferred selection strategy may be lean growth rate on restricted feeding, which simultaneously emphasizes rate and efficiency of lean growth.

For ad-libitum fed LW pigs, coheritabilities for growth rate, daily food intake and backfat depth with carcass lean content were negative (-0·12, -0·22 and -0·50 (s.e. 0·05), but positive with carcass subcutaneous fat content (0·22, 0·24 and 0·50), when estimated from six generations of performance test data and carcass dissection data in generations 2, 4 and 6.

Keywords

carcass compositiongenetic parameterslean growthpigsselection
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , October 1995 , pp. 347 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Bereskin, B. and Steele, N. C. 1988. Estimates of genetic parameters for carcass measures of body composition and growth in swine. Journal of Animal Science 66: 2498–2507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cameron, N. D. 1994. Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. 1. Selection pressure applied and direct responses in a Large White herd. Animal Production 59: 251–262.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D. and Curran, M. K. 1994. Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. 2. Selection pressure applied and direct responses in a Landrace herd. Animal Production 59: 263–269.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D. and Curran, M. K. 1995. Genotype with environment interaction in pigs divergently selected for components of efficient lean growth rate. Animal Science In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, N. D., Curran, M. K. and Kerr, J. C. 1994. Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. 3. Responses to selection with a restricted feeding regime. Animal Production 59: 271–279.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D. and Enser, M. B. 1991. Fatty acid composition of lipid in longissimus dorsi muscle of Duroc and British Landrace pigs and its relationship with eating quality. Meat Science 29: 295–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cleveland, E. R., Johnson, R. K. and Mandigo, R. W. 1983. Index selection and feed intake restriction in swine. 1. Effect on rate and composition of growth. Journal of Animal Science 56: 560–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cliplef, R. L. and McKay, R. M. 1993. Carcass quality characteristics of swine selected for reduced backfat thickness and increased growth rate. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 73: 483–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conniffe, D. and Moran, M. A. 1972. Double sampling with regression in comparative studies of carcass composition. Biometrics 28: 1011–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G. L., Jones, D. W. and Kempster, A. J. 1983. A note on a simple criterion for choosing among sample joints for use in double sampling. Animal Production 36: 493–495.Google Scholar
DeNise, R. S. K., Irvin, K. M., Swiger, L. A. and Plimpton, R. F. 1983. Selection for increased leanness of Yorkshire swine. 4. Indirect response of the carcass, breeding efficiency and preweaning litter traits. Journal of Animal Science 56: 551–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, M., Smith, W. C., Henderson, R., Whittemore, C. T. and Laird, R. 1983. Comparative performance and body composition of control and selection line Large White pigs. 2. Feeding to appetite for a fixed time. Animal Production 36: 407–413.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R., Bichard, M. and Pease, A. 1976. Objectives in pig breeding. Animal Production 23: 365–387.Google Scholar
Fredeen, H. T. and Mikami, H. 1986. Mass selection in a pig population: correlated changes in carcass merit. Journal of Animal Science 62: 1546–1554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee. 1989. Genstat 5 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Godfrey, N. W., Frapple, P. G., Paterson, A. M. and Payne, H. G. 1991. Differences in the composition and tissue distribution of pig carcasses due to selection and feeding level. Animal Production 53: 97–103.Google Scholar
Graser, H. U., Smith, S. P. and Tier, B. 1987. A derivative-free approach for estimating variance components in animal models by restricted maximum likelihood. Journal of Animal Science 64: 1362–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, W. G. 1980. Design of quantitative genetic selection experiments. In Selection experiments in laboratory and domestic animals (ed. Robertson, A.), pp. 1–13. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Juga, J. and Thompson, R. 1993. A derivative-free algorithm to estimate bivariate (co)variance components using canonical transformations and estimated rotations. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 42: 191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, B. W., Hudson, G. F. S. and Schaeffer, L. R. 1990. Evaluation of genetic change in performance tested pigs in Canada. Proceedings of fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, vol. 10, pp. 149–154.Google Scholar
Knol, E. F. and Molenaar, B. A. J. 1990. Causes of inefficiency in the realisation of genetic improvement at commercial level. Proceedings of fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, vol. 15, pp. 446–449.Google Scholar
Kuhlers, D. L. and Jungst, S. B. 1992. Correlated responses in reproductive and carcass traits to selection for 200-day weight in Duroc swine. Journal of Animal Science 70: 2707–2713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhlers, D. L. and Jungst, S. B. 1993. Correlated responses in reproductive and carcass traits to selection for 200-day weight in Landrace pigs. Journal of Animal Science 71: 595–601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lo, L. L., McLaren, D. G., McKeith, F. K., Fernando, R. L. and Novakofski, J. 1992. Genetic analyses of growth, real-time ultrasound, carcass and pork quality traits in Duroc and Landrace pigs. 2. Heritabilities and correlations. Journal of Animal Science 70: 2387–2396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McPhee, C. P., Thornton, R. F., Trappett, P. C., Biggs, J. S., Shorthose, W. R. and Ferguson, D. M. 1991. A comparison of the effects of porcine somatotrophin, genetic selection and sex on performance, carcase and meat quality traits of pigs fed ad-libitum. Livestock Production Science 28: 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäntysaari, E. A., Haltia, S. and Aakula, K. 1994. Multitrait animal model evaluation for station tested pigs. Proceedings of fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, vol. 17, pp. 406–409.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. 1985. Maximum likelihood estimation of variance components for a multivariate mixed model with equal design matrices. Biometrics 41: 153–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, K. 1989. Restricted maximum likelihood to estimate variance components for animal models with several random effects using a derivative-free algorithm. Genetique, Selection et Evolution 21: 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D. and Thompson, R. 1971. Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58: 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, B. P. and Dean, R. 1994. National genetic evaluations for swine in Canada. Proceedings of fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, vol. 17, pp. 382–385.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1985. Use of genetic size-scaling in evaluation of animals growth. Journal of Animal Science 61: suppl. 2, pp. 118–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tibau i Font, J., Soler, J. and Trilla, N. 1994. Evaluation of pig herdbook breeding stock productive traits in Catalonia (Spain). Proceedings of fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, vol. 17, pp. 386–389.Google Scholar
Thompson, R., Crump, R. E., Juga, J. and Visscher, P. M. 1995. Estimating variances and covariances for bivariate animal models using scaling and transformation. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 27: 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangen, O. 1980. Studies on a two trait selection experiment in pigs. 3. Correlated responses in daily feed intake, feed conversion and carcass traits. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 30: 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. 1977. Selection for leanness and the energetic efficiency of growth in meat animals. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 36: 53–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woltmann, M. D., Clutter, A. C., Buchanan, D. S. and Dolezal, H. G. 1992. Growth and carcass characteristics of pigs selected for fast or slow gain in relation to feed intake and efficiency. Journal of Animal Science 70: 1049–1054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, J. D., Whelehan, O. P., Ellis, M., Smith, W. C. 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: 389–397.Google Scholar