1971
DOI: 10.4141/cjas71-068
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fat Distribution in Swine as Influenced by Liveweight, Breed, Sex and Ration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
8
0

Year Published

1976
1976
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
3
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Current estimates of the coefficients with carcass or side weight as the independent variable range from 0-65 to 0-92 for bone, from 0-85 to 1-07 for muscle and from 1-13 to 1-80 for fat. They also support related observations on pigs concerning the proportionate growth of muscle plus bone in the hind limbs and of the whole carcass (Elsley et al, 1964) and the changes with age in the distribution of tissues throughout the carcass (Doornenbahl, 1971 and1972;Richmond and Berg, 1971b, 1971c. The comparatively large standard errors and residual standard deviations associated with the growth coefficients for fat, irrespective of the independent variable taken, support the view (Fowler and Livingstone, 1972;Davies, 1974a) that fat deposition is not as closely related to either body, carcass or muscle plus bone weight as are muscle or bone growth.…”
Section: Growth Of Bone Muscle and Fatsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Current estimates of the coefficients with carcass or side weight as the independent variable range from 0-65 to 0-92 for bone, from 0-85 to 1-07 for muscle and from 1-13 to 1-80 for fat. They also support related observations on pigs concerning the proportionate growth of muscle plus bone in the hind limbs and of the whole carcass (Elsley et al, 1964) and the changes with age in the distribution of tissues throughout the carcass (Doornenbahl, 1971 and1972;Richmond and Berg, 1971b, 1971c. The comparatively large standard errors and residual standard deviations associated with the growth coefficients for fat, irrespective of the independent variable taken, support the view (Fowler and Livingstone, 1972;Davies, 1974a) that fat deposition is not as closely related to either body, carcass or muscle plus bone weight as are muscle or bone growth.…”
Section: Growth Of Bone Muscle and Fatsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…At higher body weights, nutritional differences in fat partitioning are not apparent, when compared at the same total fat content. The mean differences in fat partitioning demonstrated by Richmond & Berg (1971) over the live-weight range of 23-114 kg were small, both when females and castrated males were compared, and when the digestible energy and protein proportion of the diet were increased by about one third. If fat partitioning is affected by extreme nutritional differences, this may be most pronounced over the most rapid phase of postnatal multiplicative growth.…”
Section: The Partitioning Of Carcass Fatmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…His arithmetic ratios suggest that the growth of intermuscular fat is greater than subcutaneous fat, relative to total fat, although this is not evident when his data are re-analysed allometrically. The arithmetic ratios of Richmond & Berg (1971) indicate the opposite trend; subcutaneous fat increases and intermuscular fat decreases relative to total fat, in pigs of mixed breed and sex between 23 and 114 kg live weight. This trend is also apparent upon allometric reanalysis of their data.…”
Section: The Partitioning Of Carcass Fatmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…The present study confirms this trend for each sex (Table 5). However, Richmond & Berg (1971), using a total of 92 pigs from Yorkshire sows mated to Duroc, Hampshire and Yorkshire boars, described a nutritional effect on fat partitioning that is opposite to the above. Their pigs were compared at different total fat weights, but since subcutaneous fat grows faster than intermuscular fat (Davies & Kallweit, 1979), this does not explain why they found relatively more intermuscular fat in faster growing pigs.…”
Section: The Proportion Partitioning and Distribution Of Fatmentioning
confidence: 99%