Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T21:46:32.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tissue growth in the pig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. J. A. Cole ,
M. R. White ,
B. Hardy  and
J. R. Carr
D. J. A. Cole
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE12 5RD
M. R. White
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE12 5RD
B. Hardy
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE12 5RD
J. R. Carr
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE12 5RD
Get access

Summary

Growth coefficients were determined for muscle, bone and fat in the side and in the ham, for six muscles of the ham, and for the femur, using data obtained from the dissection of 66 carcasses of female pigs weighing from 25 to 65 kg live weight.

Irrespective of the independent variable taken for regression, the coefficients showed bone in the side to be earlier developing than muscle, which in turn was earlier than fat. There is good agreement between these coefficients and corresponding values reported for cattle, sheep and pigs.

There was little evidence that the ham as a whole or its muscle, bone and fat components grew disproportionately to the corresponding components of the whole side.

The growth coefficients of the six muscles of the ham agreed closely with those reported for cattle, sheep and pigs with the exception of that for the m. adductor, which was lower.

The combined weights of the m. biceps femoris and m. adductor were related almost as closely to the weight of muscle in the side as was the weight of total muscle in the ham. Of the six muscles taken individually the weight of the m. biceps femoris was most closely related to muscle in the side.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , June 1976 , pp. 341 - 350
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1976

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

REFERENCES

Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1966. Muscle: bone ratio and fat percentage as measures of beef carcass composition. Anim. Prod. 8: 1–11.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1968. Growth patterns of bovine muscle, fat and bone. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 611–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1975. Growth of meat animals. In Meat (ed. Cole, D. J. A. and Lawrie, R. A.). Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. 1964. Estimation of carcase composition: the anatomical approach. Proc. Tech. Conf. on Carcase Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals, Melbourne (ed. Tribe, D. E.). CSIRO, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. and Berg, R. T. 1966a. A classification of bovine muscles, based on their relative growth patterns. Res. vet. Sci. 7: 326–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butterfield, R. M. and Berg, R. T. 1966b. Relative growth patterns of commercially important muscle groups of cattle. Res. vet. Sci. 7: 389–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuthbertson, A. and Pomeroy, R. W. 1962. Quantitative anatomical studies of the composition of the pig at 50, 68 and 92 kg carcass weight. II. Gross composition and skeletal composition. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 59: 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A. S. 1974a. A comparison of tissue development in Pietrain and Large White pigs from birth to 64 kg live weight. 1. Growth changes in carcass composition. Anim. Prod. 19: 367–376.Google Scholar
Davies, A. S. 1974b. A comparison of tissue development in Pietrain and Large White pigs from birth to 64 kg live weight. 2. Growth changes in muscle distribution. Anim. Prod. 19: 377–387.Google Scholar
Doornenbahl, H. 1971. Growth, development and chemical composition of the pig. I. Lean tissue and protein. Growth 35: 281–295.Google Scholar
Doornenbahl, H. 1972. Growth, development and chemical composition of the pig. II. Fatty tissue and chemical fat. Growth 36: 185–194.Google Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H., McDonald, I. and Fowler, V. R. 1964. The effect of plane of nutrition on the carcasses of pigs and lambs when variations in fat content are excluded. Anim. Prod. 6: 141–154.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R. and Livingstone, R. M. 1972. Modern concepts of growth in pigs. In Pig Production (ed. Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 143–161. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. 1932. Growth and the Development of Mutton Qualities in the Sheep. A Survey of the Problems involved in Meat Production. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1932. Problems of Relative Growth. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Jackson, T. H. 1967. The allometric relationship between carcass muscle and carcass bone in Scottish Blackface sheep. Anim. Prod. 9: 531–533.Google Scholar
Jackson, T. H. 1969. Relative weight changes in the tissues of the gigot joint as Scottish Blackface castrated male lambs develop from weaning to maturity and an analysis of the observed individual variation. Anim. Prod. 11: 409–417.Google Scholar
Lohse, C. L. 1973. The influence of sex on muscle growth in Merino sheep. Growth 37: 177–187.Google ScholarPubMed
Lohse, C. L., Moss, F. P. and Butterfield, R. M. 1971. Growth patterns of muscles of Merino sheep from birth to 517 days. Anim. Prod. 13: 117–126.Google Scholar
Orme, L. E., Christian, R. E. and Bell, T. D. 1962. Live animal and carcass indices for estimating carcass composition in lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 21: 984 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Orme, L. E., Cole, J. W., Kincaid, C. M. and Cooper, R. J. 1960. Predicting tota l carcass lean in mature beef from weights of certain entire muscles. J. Anim. Sci. 19: 726–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, R. J., and Berg, R. T. 1971a. Tissue development in swine as influenced by liveweight, breed, sex and ration. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 51: 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, R. J., and Berg, R. T. 1971b. Muscle growth and distribution in swine as influenced by liveweight, breed, sex and ration. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 51: 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, R. J., and Berg, R. T. 1971c. Fat distribution in swine as influenced by live-weight, breed, sex and ration. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 51: 523–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, R. J. and Berg, R. T. 1972. Bone growth and distribution in swine as influenced by liveweight, breed, sex and ration. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 52: 47–56.Google Scholar
Sisson, S. and Grossman, J. D. 1953. The Anatomy of the Domestic Animals. 4th ed. Saunders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Tulloh, N. M. 1964. The carcase compositions of sheep, cattle and pigs as functions of body weight. Proc. Tech. Conf. on Carcase Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals, Melbourne (ed. Tribe, D. E.). CSIRO, Melbourne.Google Scholar