J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J. Anim Sci. 1984. 58:324-334.
© 1984 American Society of Animal Science

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mersmann, H. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Mersmann, H. J.

Accretion of Fat and Muscle in Growing Swine as Assessed by Ultrasonic Methods

H. J. Mersmann1

US Department of Agriculture,2, 3,, Clay Center, NE 68933

Abstract

Body composition was measured sequentially with ultrasonic methods in growing swine at about 20, 55 and 90 kg body weight. Carcass chemical composition was determined at a body weight of about 96 kg. Growth of Subcutaneous adipose tissue was mostly curvilinear over the weights studied, although it was linear at the midbody region. There were major differences in growth at contiguous adipose tissue sites. The amount of adipose tissue assessed by fat depth measurements or muscle assessed by longissimus area at 20 kg body weight (about feeder pig weight) was not highly correlated with similar measurements on the same animals at about 87 kg body weight or with carcass measurements at about 96 kg body weight. Prediction of market weight pig composition from measurements made on feeder pigs does not appear to be a viable option. Carcass chemical composition was predicted to a modest extent by live animal or carcass measurements in these animals witha relatively constant slaughter weight. Ultrasonic measurement in the live animal was as valuable as carcass measurements for these purposes. Furthermore, it was non-destructive and allowed the sequential or longitudinal assessment of the same animal.


Footnotes

1 I would especially like to acknowledge the statistical consultation provided by Dr. M. D. MacNeil. I would like to thank J. K. Byrkit for excellent secretarial assistance, W. Hinerman and associates for statistical analysis, and Drs. K. A. Leymaster, J. D. Crouse and H. R. Cross for statistical and technical consultation.

2 Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, ARS, P.O. Box 166, Clay Center, NE 68933.

3 Mention of a trade name, proprietary product or vendor does not constitute a guarantee or warranty by the USDA and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products or vendors that may be suitable.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1984 by the American Society of Animal Science.