Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-18T04:52:09.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Time trends of Gompertz growth parameters in ‘meat-type’ pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

P. W. Knap
P. W. Knap*
Affiliation:
PIC Group, Fyfield Wick, Kingston Bagpuize, Abingdon OX13 5NA
*
† Stationed at the Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS. Correspondence to this address.
Get access

Abstract

Previously published data from serial slaughter trials on growing pigs of five genotypes were reanalysed. Gompertz curves were fitted to body protein and lipid mass in order to estimate mature protein and lipid mass (P∞, L∞) and the rate parameter (BGomp J that was presumed to be equal for the protein and lipid curves. L∞ was expressed as its ratio to P∞, R L∞P∞. The maximum rate of protein deposition was derived as Pdep,max = P∞ X BGomp/e. The analysed data encompass body weights of 10 to 133 kg, 13 to 217 kg, 18 to 106 kg, 20 to 110 kg and 11 to 145 kg. The Gompertz function fitted all data sets well, as judged by the standard deviations and distribution patterns of the residual terms. Autocorrelations among the residuals were non-significant.

Averaged over sexes (females and entire and castrated males), the P estimates were all close to 31 kg; the RL∞/P∞ estmates ranged from 1·4 to 4·7 kg/kg; the BGomp estimates ranged from 0·009 to 0·017 kg/day per kg. The resulting Pdep,max estimates ranged from 110 to 193 g/day. The genotypes were placed in 1969, 1976, 1984, 1990 and 1993. Plotting the estimates against time (year) showed distinct time trends for all parameters except P∞. RL∞/P∞ seems to gradually reach a plateau around unity, whereas BGomp and Pdep/max increase linearly. These trends were confirmed by an analysis of body weight based on the same data plus data on three other genotypes that spanned the same time period. Analyses of the same protein and lipid data to fit a sigmoid growth function with a flexible point of inflexion did not change the apparently absent time trend of F. The estimates of the inflexion points of the fitted protein accretion curves, expressed as proportions ofF, were indistinguishable from the fixed 0·368 value of the Gompertz function for the earliest three genotypes and then showed a tendency to increase, up to 0·46 for the 1993 population. These time trends must be the consequence of a combination of changes in nutritional and other environmental factors and genetic changes. They cannot be the sole result of within-line selection for growth and body composition traits, since this should increase P∞. It seems as if pig breeders have repeatedly initiated their sire lines from genetic resources with small mature size, to subsequently increase this trait as an indirect result of within-line selection.

Keywords

growthpigssimulationtime trend
Type
Growth, development and meat science
Information
Animal Science , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , February 2000 , pp. 39 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

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

Andersen, S. and Pedersen, B. 1996. Growth and food intake curves for group-housed gilts and castrated male pigs. Animal Science 63: 457–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, R. L. and Sainz, R. D. 1995. Energy partitioning and modelling in animal nutrition. Annual Reviews of Nutrition 15: 191–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Black, J. L., Campbell, R. G., Williams, I. H., James, K. J. and Davies, G. T. 1986. Simulation of energy and amino acid utilisation in the pig. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 121–145.Google Scholar
Black, J. L., Davies, G. T., Bray, H. J., Giles, L. R. and Chappie, R. P. 1995. Modelling the effects of genotype, environment and health on nutrient utilisation. In Modelling nutrient utilisation in farm animals (ed. Danfaer, A. and Lescoat, P.), pp. 85–106. Danish Institute of Animal Science, Foulum.Google Scholar
Bridges, T.C, Turner, L. W., Smith, E. M., Stáhly, T. S. and Loewer, O. J. 1986. A mathematical procedure for estimating animal growth and body composition. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 29: 1342–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, H. M. 1983. International pig breed encyclopedia. Elanco Products, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
Biinger, L. and Schönfelder, E. 1984. Zur Lebensleistung wachstumsselektierter Labormausweibchen: Wachstumsverlauf. Probleme der Angewandten Statistik 11: 185–196.Google Scholar
Doornenbal, H. 1971. Growth, development and chemical composition of the pig. 1. Lean tissue and protein. Growth 35: 281–295.Google Scholar
Doornenbal, H. 1972. Growth, development and chemical composition of the pig. 2. Fatty tissue and chemical fat. Growth 36: 185–194.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1988. Genetic components of potential and actual growth. In Animal breeding opportunities (ed. Land, R. B. Bulfield, G. and Hill, W.G.), British Society of Animal Production occasional publication no. 12, pp. 153–181.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1989. The growth of turkeys. In Recent advances in turkey science (ed. Nixey, C. and Grey, T.C.), pp. 135–165. Butter worths, London.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. and Kyriazakis, I. 1998. Growth and body composition. In A quantitative biology of the pig (ed. Kyriazakis, I.), pp. 181–198. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Ferguson, N. S. and Gous, R. M. 1993a. Evaluation of pig genotypes. 1. Theoretical aspects of measuring genetic parameters. Animal Science 56: 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, N. S. and Gous, R. M. 1993b. Evaluation of pig genotypes. 2. Testing experimental procedure. Animal Science 56: 245–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzhugh, H. A. 1976. Analysis of growth curves and strategies for altering their shape. Journal of Animal Science 42: 1036–1051.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hancock, C. E., Bradford, G. D., Emmans, G. C. and Gous, R. M. 1995. The evaluation of the growth parameters of six strains of commercial broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 36: 247–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoick, J. T., Schinckel, A. P., Coleman, J. L., Wilt, V. M., Senn, M. K., Thacker, B. J., Thacker, E. L. and Grant, A. L. 1998. The influence of environment on the growth of commercial finisher pigs. Swine Health and Production 6: 141–149.Google Scholar
Klusáček, . 1990. [The development of body dimensions and weight in pigs.] Náš Chov 50: 121–123.Google Scholar
Lofgren, D. L., Harris, D. L., Stewart, T. S., Anderson, D. D., Schinckel, A. P. and Einstein, M. E. 1994. Genetic progress of the U.S. Yorkshire breed. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 17, pp. 425–428.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, D. D. S. and Reveil, D. K. 1998. Genetic influences on milk quantity In The lactating sow (ed. Verstegen, M. W. A. Moughan, P. J. and Schrama, J. W.), pp. 97–112. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Moughan, P. J., Verstegen, M. W. A. and Visser-Reyneveld, M. I. 1995. Modelling growth in the pig. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Noblet, J., Etienne, M. and Dourmad, J.-Y. 1998. Energetic efficiency of milk production. In The lactating sow (ed. Verstegen, M. W. A., Moughan, P J. and Schrama, J. W.), pp. 113–130. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Noblet, J., Karege, C. and Dubois, S. 1994. Prise en compte de la variabilité de la composition corporelle pour la prévision du besoin énergétique et de ľ efficacité alimentaire chez le porc en croissance. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 26: 267–276.Google Scholar
Oksbjerg, N., Søholm Petersen, J., Henckel, P. and Støier, S. 1997. Meat colour and muscle pigment in Danish Landrace anno 1976 and anno 1995. Abstracts of the 28th annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, p. 45.Google Scholar
Oslage, H. J. 1966. Stickstoff-, Fett- und Energieansatz bei wachsenden Mastschweinen. Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 21: 50–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, J. S., Henckel, P. and Støier, S. 1997. Muscle physiological traits and meat quality in Danish Landrace pigs anno 1976 and 1995. Abstracts of the 28th annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, p. 44.Google Scholar
Quiniou, N. and Noblet, J. 1995. Prediction of tissular body composition from protein and lipid deposition in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 73: 1567–1575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schinckel, A. P. and De Lange, C F M. 1996. Characterization of growth parameters needed as inputs for pig growth models. Journal of Animal Science 74: 2021–2036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1990. SAS/STAT user’s guide, vol. 2. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, Cary NC.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1993. SAS/ETS user’s guide. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. M., Sun, F., Kuczek, T., Schinckel, A. P. and Stewart, T. S. 1996. The effect of genotype and sex on the patterns of protein accretion in pigs. Animal Science 63: 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tullis, J. B. 1981. Protein growth in pigs. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh. Google Scholar
Van Lunen, T. A. and Cole, D. J. A. 1998. Growth and body composition of highly selected boars and gilts. Animal Science 67: 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lunen, T. J. A. 1994. A study of the growth and nutrient requirements of highly selected pigs. Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham. Google Scholar
Walstra, P. 1980. Growth and carcass composition from birth to maturity in relation to feeding level and sex in Dutch Landrace pigs. Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University. Google Scholar
White, B. R., Lan, Y. H., McKeith, F. K., Novakofski, J., Wheeler, M. B. and McLaren, D. G. 1995. Growth and body composition of Meishan and Yorkshire barrows and gilts. Journal of Animal Science 73: 738–749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittemore, C.T.. 1994. Causes and consequences of change in the mature size of the domestic pig. Outlook on Agriculture 23: 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, C.T. 1998. Influence of pregnancy feeding on lactation performance. In The lactating sow (ed. Verstegen, M. W. A. Moughan, P. J. and Schrama, J. W.), pp. 183–200. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C.T. and Fawcett, R. H. 1974. Model responses of the growing pig to the dietary intake of energy and protein. Animal Production 19: 221–231.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C.T., Tullis, J. B. and Emmans, G. C. 1988. Protein growth in pigs. Animal Production 46: 437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, I. H. 1995. Sow’s milk as a major nutrient source before weaning. In Manipulating pig production, vol. 5 (ed. Hennessy, D. P. and Cranwell, P. D.), pp. 107–113. Australasian Pig Science Association, Werribee.Google Scholar