Birth weight of litters as source of Birth weight of litters as source of
variation in postnatal growth, carcass, variation in postnatal growth, carcass,
and meat quality and meat quality
Giuseppe Bee
Giuseppe Bee
Difference of BW at weaning and at beginning of the fattening period
Birth weight
1.0 kg 1.4 kg 2.0 kg
Difference of BW, kg
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
∆ (At weaning)
∆ (Beginning of the fattening period)
Difference of BW at weaning and at beginning of the fattening period Difference of age at 105 kg BW
Birth weight
1.0 kg 1.4 kg 2.0 kg
Age at105 kg BW, d
-20 -10 0 10 20
Difference of BW, kg
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
∆ (Age at 105 kg BW)
∆ (At weaning)
∆ (Beginning of the fattening period)
Evolution of survival rate by birth weight class
days
1 7 14 28
Survial
0%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2.4 kg
Birth weight Birth weight
Evolution of survival rate by birth weight class
days
1 7 14 28
Survial
0%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2.0 kg 2.4 kg
Quiniou, 2002
Livestock Production Science (2002) 78:63-70
Quiniou, 2002
Livestock Production Science (2002) 78:63-70
Impact on early
Impact on early survival rate survival rate
Evolution of survival rate by birth weight class
days
1 7 14 28
Survial
0%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1.4 kg 2.0 kg 2.4 kg Evolution of survival rate
by birth weight class
days
1 7 14 28
Survial
0%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1.0 kg 1.4 kg 2.0 kg 2.4 kg Evolution of survival rate
by birth weight class
days
1 7 14 28
Survial
0%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0.6 kg 1.0 kg 1.4 kg 2.0 kg 2.4 kg
and postnatal growth and postnatal growth
Birth weight Birth weight
Litter size ≥ 14 14 piglets Birth weight
• Average: 1.6 kg
• Minimum: 1.2 kg
• Maximum: 1.9 kg
• Std: 0.4 kg
Litter size ≤ 10 10 piglets Birth weight
• Average: 1.8 kg
• Minimum: 1.6 kg
• Maximum: 2.0 kg
• Std: 0.3 kg
Litter size
Bee, 2006
J. Anim. Sci. 2004. 82(Suppl 1):50
Litter size as the source of the observed variability Litter size as the source of the observed variability
- - 200 g 200 g
- - 400 g 400 g
- - 100 g 100 g
Partition of piglets with regard to their birth weight and litter size
Birth weight, kg
< 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.1 1.1 - 1.2 1.2 - 1.3 1.3 - 1.4 1.4 - 1.5 1.5 - 1.6 1.6 - 1.7 1.7 - 1.8 1.8 - 1.9 1.9 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.1 2.1 - 2.2 2.2 - 2.3 > 2.4
% of total born
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
>= 16 piglets
Birth weight Birth weight
Litter size as the source of
Litter size as the source of the observed variability the observed variability
Partition of piglets with regard to their birth weight and litter size
Birth weight, kg
< 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.1 1.1 - 1.2 1.2 - 1.3 1.3 - 1.4 1.4 - 1.5 1.5 - 1.6 1.6 - 1.7 1.7 - 1.8 1.8 - 1.9 1.9 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.1 2.1 - 2.2 2.2 - 2.3 > 2.4
% of total born
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
>= 16 piglets Partition of piglets with regard to
their birth weight and litter size
Birth weight, kg
< 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.1 1.1 - 1.2 1.2 - 1.3 1.3 - 1.4 1.4 - 1.5 1.5 - 1.6 1.6 - 1.7 1.7 - 1.8 1.8 - 1.9 1.9 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.1 2.1 - 2.2 2.2 - 2.3 > 2.4
% of total born
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
>= 16 piglets 14 - 15 piglets Partition of piglets with regard to
their birth weight and litter size
Birth weight, kg
< 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.1 1.1 - 1.2 1.2 - 1.3 1.3 - 1.4 1.4 - 1.5 1.5 - 1.6 1.6 - 1.7 1.7 - 1.8 1.8 - 1.9 1.9 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.1 2.1 - 2.2 2.2 - 2.3 > 2.4
% of total born
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
>= 16 piglets 14 - 15 piglets Partition of piglets with regard to
their birth weight and litter size
Birth weight, kg
< 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.1 1.1 - 1.2 1.2 - 1.3 1.3 - 1.4 1.4 - 1.5 1.5 - 1.6 1.6 - 1.7 1.7 - 1.8 1.8 - 1.9 1.9 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.1 2.1 - 2.2 2.2 - 2.3 > 2.4
% of total born
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
>= 16 piglets 14 - 15 piglets
<= 11 piglets Partition of piglets with regard to
their birth weight and litter size
Birth weight, kg
< 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.1 1.1 - 1.2 1.2 - 1.3 1.3 - 1.4 1.4 - 1.5 1.5 - 1.6 1.6 - 1.7 1.7 - 1.8 1.8 - 1.9 1.9 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.1 2.1 - 2.2 2.2 - 2.3 > 2.4
% of total born
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
>= 16 piglets 14 - 15 piglets
<= 11 piglets
Myogenesis Myogenesis
pre- pre - myoblasts myoblasts
PROLIFERATION
PROLIFERATION DIFFERENTIATION DIFFERENTIATION
Myofiber Myofiber
embryonic and foetal embryonic and foetal
myoblasts myoblasts
primary / secondary primary / secondary
myotube myotube
The different stages of myofiber formation The different stages of myofiber formation
satellite
satellite cells cells
(adult myoblasts)
Myogenesis Myogenesis
Biphasic pattern of
Biphasic pattern of prenatal prenatal muscle development muscle development
d 35 d 35 d 55 d 55 d 90 d 90
p p rimary rimary
myofiber
s s econdary econdary
myofiber
P P P P P P
S S S S
Picard et al., 2002
Reprod. Nutr. Dev. (2002) 415-431
total number total number
of myofiber of myofiber
is fixed is fixed
birth
Myofiber Myofiber
Importance for
Importance for postnatal growth postnatal growth
increase increase in in
myofiber
myofiber size size
increase increase in in
muscle
muscle mass mass
Postnatal development of
myofiber number and myofiber thickness
Age, wk
0 10 20 30 40
T o ta l m y o fi b e r n u m b e r, x 1 0 6
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Myofiber diameter,µm
0 20 40 60 80
Myofiber number Myofiber diameter
Rehfeldt et al. 1999
Basic Appl. Myiol. 1999. 9(5):233-253
Myofiber Myofiber
Relationship between
Relationship between myofiber number myofiber number, , size, and size , and muscle mass muscle mass
Myofiber
number number
Myofiber size size
(diameter or area)
Muscle cross sectional area area
r
P= - 0.3
to0.8 r
P= + 0.3
to0.5
r
P= + 0.6
Rehfeldt and Kuhn. 2006
J. Anim. Sci. 2006. 84(E. Suppl.):E113-E123
Importance for
Importance for postnatal growth postnatal growth
Dwyer et al. 1993
J. Anim. Sci. 1993. 71:3339-3343
Dwyer et al. 1993
J. Anim. Sci. 1993. 71:3339-3343
r r = 0.42 = 0.42 r r = 0.42 = 0.42
T T otal myo otal myo f f iber iber n n umber (TFN) umber (TFN)
ADG vs. TFN
ADG vs. TFN G/F vs. TFN G/F vs. TFN
Total myofiber
Total myofiber number number
LW MW HW
Muscle deposition rate, g/d
50 150 250
350 a b c
LW MW HW
Weight of the ST, g
50 150 250 350 450
a b c
Within
Within - - litter variation and their effects on performance litter variation and their effects on performance
Nissen et al. 2004 J. Anim. Sci. 2004. 82:414-421
LW MW HW
ADG, g/d
100 300 500 700 900
1100 a b c
Birth weight
Birth weight affects affects postnatal growth, carcass postnatal growth, carcass characteristics,
characteristics, and and pork quality traits pork quality traits Birth weight Birth weight
low low
(0.9 kg) (0.9 kg)
high high
(1.8 kg) (1.8 kg)
Hot carcass weight, kg Hot carcass weight, kg
Lean meat, % Lean meat, % Omental fat, % Omental fat, %
myofiber area,
myofiber area, µ µ m m
22myofiber number,
myofiber number, x x 1000 1000 Overall ADG, kg/d Overall ADG, kg/d
Drip loss, % Drip loss, %
0.582
0.582 0.641 0.641
84.2 84.2 92.5 92.5
54.8
54.8 56.5 56.5
2.8 2.8 2.4 2.4
6.6 6.6 4.5 4.5
900 900 1´ 1 ´ 200 200 3´ 3 ´900 900 3´ 3 ´ 200 200
< <
< <
< <
> >
> >
> >
< <
Results of recent studies (1) Results of recent studies (1)
“ “ giant” giant ” myofibers, % myofibers, % 0.44 0.44 > > 0.07 0.07
Rehfeldt and Kuhn 2006J. Anim. Sci. 2006. 84E. Suppl.):E113-E123
Live weight, kg
Live weight, kg 106.1 106.1 < < 116.0 116.0
Birth weight
Birth weight affects affects postnatal growth, carcass postnatal growth, carcass characteristics,
characteristics, and and pork quality traits pork quality traits
Birth weight Birth weight
low low
(1.1 kg) (1.1 kg)
high high
(1.9 kg) (1.9 kg)
Hot carcass weight, kg Hot carcass weight, kg Lean meat content, % Lean meat content, %
Backfat Backfat , % , %
Fatty acid
Fatty acid synthase synthase, , nmol nmol /min /min Adipocyte
Adipocyte diameter, diameter, µm µ m
Overall ADG, kg/d Overall ADG, kg/d
Loin, % Loin, %
0.650
0.650 0.690 0.690
90.2 90.2 89.5 89.5 61.1 61.1 63.0 63.0
6.7 6.7 5.2 5.2
27.1 27.1 28.0 28.0
64.9 64.9 57.2 57.2 269.0
269.0 214.0 214.0
< <
= =
< <
> >
< <
> >
> >
Gondret et al.., 2006 J. Anim. Sci. (2006) 84:93-103
Ham, %
Ham, % 25.0 25.0 < < 26.4 26.4
Tenderness score,
Tenderness score,
(10-(10-point scale)point scale)4.0 4.0 < < 4.7 4.7
Belly, %
Belly, % 14.1 14.1 > > 13.1 13.1
Results of recent studies (2)
Results of recent studies (2)
Age
M y o fi b e r s iz e
Low birth weight pigs
Age
M y o fi b e r s iz e
Low birth weight pigs High birth weight pigs
Myofiber hypertrophy and adiposity Myofiber hypertrophy and adiposity
Possible explanation
Possible explanation
Feeding
Feeding strategy strategy and and pork pork quality quality
Compensatory growth
Meat quality traits
• Proteolytic capacity
• Drip loss
• Tenderness
(Kristensen et al. 2002)
Growth performance
• ADG
• Feed intake
• G/F ratio
(Oksbjerg et al. 2001)
Experimental day
0 20 40 60 80 100
BW, kg
30 50 70 90 110
ad libitum / ad libitum
Experimental day
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
BW, kg
30 50 70 90 110
ad libitum / ad libitum restricted / restricted
Experimental day
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
BW, kg
30 50 70 90 110
ad libitum / ad libitum restricted / restricted restricted / ad libitum
Reported relationship
Reported relationship
Open question Open question
Can the effect of
Can the effect of compensatory growth compensatory growth help to overcome the negative impact of help to overcome the negative impact of
low birth weight
low birth weight on: on:
Pork quality Pork quality
Carcass characteristics Carcass characteristics
Growth performance
Growth performance
Experimental design Experimental design
42 barrows
(from 21 litters)
21 barrows
( low birth weight: 1.1 low birth weight
± 0.05kg)
21 barrows
( high birth weight: > 1.9 high birth weight
± 0.05kg)
AA AA RR RR
R R A A
27 – 63 kg BWad libitumfeed access 63 – 102 kg BWad libitumfeed access
27 – 63 kg BWrestrictedfeed access 63 – 102 kg BWrestrictedfeed access
27 – 63 kg BWrestrictedfeed access 63 – 102 kg BWad libitumfeed access
Determined parameters Determined parameters
Carcass measurements Carcass measurements
• Percentage lean tissue
• Percentage subcutaneous fat
Growth performance Growth performance
• ADG
• Feed intake
• Gain to feed ratio
Meat quality traits Meat quality traits
Longissimus muscle (LM)
• Color
• Drip loss
(24 and 48 h)• Shear force
Protein analysis Protein analysis
Longissimus muscle (LM)
• µ µ - - and m and m -calpain activity - calpain activity
(30 min and 24 h postmortem determined by casein-zymography)
• Degradation of titin Degradation of titin
(30 min, 24, 48, and 48 h postmortem determined by SDS-PAGE)
• Degradation of talin Degradation of talin
(30 min, 24, 48, and 48 h postmortem determined by SDS-PAGE and Western Blot)
Growth performance
Growth performance – – ADFI and ADG ADFI and ADG
Feeding strategy
AA RA RR
A D G , k g /d
0.0 0.6 0.7
0.8 b b a
Feeding strategy
AA RA RR
A D F I, k g /d
0.0 1.6 1.8 2.0
2.2 c b a
Within a graph, bars that do not have common letters differ (P < 0.05)
Effect of feeding strategy
Effect of feeding strategy
Growth performance
Growth performance – – ADG ADG
Birth weight
L H
A D G , k g /d
(from birth to 27 kg BW)0.20 0.25 0.30
0.35 a b
Within a graph, bars that do not have common letters differ (P < 0.05)
Effect of birth weight Effect of birth weight
Birth weight
L H
A D G , k g /d
(from 27 to 102 kg BW)0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80
Birth weight
L H
A D G , k g /d
(from 27 to 102 kg BW)0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
a b
Growth performance
Growth performance – – total feed intake and G/F ratio total feed intake and G/F ratio
Birth weight
L H
T o ta l fe e d i n ta k e , k g
0 180 190 200
210 b a
Birth weight
L H
G a in t o f e e d r a ti o , k g /k g
0.00 0.10 0.35 0.40
a b
Within a graph, bars that do not have common letters differ (P < 0.05)
Effect of birth weight
Effect of birth weight
Carcass measurements
Carcass measurements – – lean percentage lean percentage
Feeding startegy
AA RA RR
L e a n p e rc e n ta g e , %
0 50 55 60
a a b
Birth weight
L H
L e a n p e rc e n ta g e , %
0 50 55 60
a b
Within a graph, bars that do not have common letters differ (P < 0.05)
Effects of feeding strategy and birth weight
Effects of feeding strategy and birth weight
Carcass measurements
Carcass measurements – – lean percentage lean percentage
L L ow ow birth weight birth weight High H igh birth weight birth weight
AA RA RR
L e a n p e rc e n ta g e , %
0 50 55 60
c c d
AA RA RR
cd d d
Within the graph, bars that do not have common letters differ (P < 0.10)
Birth weight
Birth weight
xxfeeding strategy interaction feeding strategy interaction
Carcass measurements
Carcass measurements – – backfat backfat percentage percentage
AA RA RR
B a c k fa t, %
0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 ab b a
AA RA RR
a a a
Low birth weight
Low birth weight High birth weight High birth weight
Within a graph, bars that do not have common letters differ (P < 0.10)
Birth weight
Birth weight
xxfeeding strategy interaction feeding strategy interaction
Meat Meat quality quality – – drip drip loss loss after after 24 and 48 h 24 and 48 h
after 24 h
Feeding strategy
AA RA RR
Drip loss, %
1 3 5
7
after 48 h
Feeding strategy
AA RA RR
Drip loss, %
1 3 5
7
after 24 h
Birth weight
L H
Drip loss, %
1 3 5
7
after 48 h
Birth weight
L H
Drip loss, %
1 3 5 7
Effect of feeding strategy
Effect of feeding strategy and birth weight and birth weight
Meat Meat quality quality – – shear shear force values force values
Feeding strategy
AA RA RR
S h e a r fo rc e v a lu e s , k g
0.0 3.2 3.6 4.0
4.4 ab a b
Within a graph, bars that do not have common letters differ (P < 0.10)
Effect of feeding strategy Effect of feeding strategy
Birth weight
L H
S h e a r fo rc e v a lu e s , k g
3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4
and birth weight
and birth weight
µµµµ- µµµµ - calpain activity calpain activity
µ -calpain activity
(casein zymography)
hours postmortem
0.5 24.0
Standardized contour quantity
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
AA RA RR
P-values
Feeding regimen: 0.03 Birth weight: 0.86 Time postmortem: < 0.01
µ-calpain m-calpain
AA AA R R A A RR RR AA AA RA R A RR RR
Effect of feeding strategy
Effect of feeding strategy
Titin
Titin degradation degradation – – in in the the LM LM
Titin degradation
hours postmortem
0.5 24.0 48.0 72.0
Relative abundance
2.0 2.5
H L
P-values
Feeding regimen (F): 0.41 Birth weight (W): 0.45 Time postmortem (T): < 0.01 W x T: 0.08
Titin
Titin
Effect of birth weight
Effect of birth weight
Conclusions Conclusions
Fetal
Fetal growth growth and Myogenesis Myogenesis
High High birth weight:
Myofibers
• Number: high high
• Size: small small
Low birth weight: Low Myofibers
• Number: small small
• Size: large large
Conclusions Conclusions
BIRTH WEIGHT BIRTH WEIGHT TOTAL MYOFIBER NUMBER
TOTAL MYOFIBER NUMBER / / MYOFIBER SIZE MYOFIBER SIZE
Growth Growth performance performance
Carcass Carcass characteristics characteristics
Birth weight
L H
Lean percentage, %
0 50 55 60
a b
Pork quality Pork quality
Birth weight
L H
Drip loss, %
1 3 5
7 b a
Birth weight
L H
Tenderness score (0 = low intensity, 10 = high intensity)
1 3
5 b a
Conclusions Conclusions
• • Positive effect on growth Positive effect on growth
• • less feed and similar growth less feed and similar growth
• • Positive effect on tenderness Positive effect on tenderness
• • increased proteolytic capacity at slaughter increased proteolytic capacity at slaughter
• • Impact of the feeding strategy Impact of the feeding strategy (compensatory growth) (compensatory growth)
BUT BUT
• Not effective to overcome negative impact of fetal
growth retardation
Thank you
for your attention Thank you
for your attention
Schlussfolgerungen Schlussfolgerungen
• Die Mast Mast- und Schlachtleistung Schlachtleistung sowie die Fleischqualit Fleischqualit ä ä t des t Mastschweins werden schon während der Tr Tr ä ä chtigkeit chtigkeit
(pränatale Entwicklung) vorbestimmt.
• Gegenüber kleineren Würfen weisen Schweine von grossen grossen Wü W ü rfe eine rfe gr gr ö ö ssere Variation im Geburtsgewicht auf. ssere Variation
• Konsequenzen für die Mastleistung
• Konsequenzen für die Schlachtleistung
• Konsequenzen für die Fleischqualität
• Eine hohe F Fü ü tterungsintensit tterungsintensit ä ä t ist bei Schweinen mit einem t
geringen Wachstumspotential Wachstumspotential (z.B. geringes Geburtsgewicht)
NICHT angezeigt.
Schlussfolgerungen Schlussfolgerungen
• Die Ausnützung des kompensatorischen Wachstums kompensatorischen Wachstums ist aus Sicht der Mast- und Mast Schlachtleistung sowie der Schlachtleistung Fleischqualit Fleischqualit ä ä t t bei Schweinen mit einem guten Wachstumspotential guten Wachstumspotential
interessant.
• verbessertes Wachstum
• geringerer Futterverzehr
• Verbesserte Futterverwertung
• gute Schlachtkörper- und Fleischqualität
• Anstrengungen in der Zucht Zucht müssen unternommen werden, um die Homogenit Homogenit ät ä t hinsichtlich Wurfgewichtes zu fördern.
• mittels Fütterung sind Mittel beschränkt die „schlechte“
Ausgangslage zu verbessern.
Talin
Talin degradation degradation – – in in the the LM LM
Talin degradation
hours postmortem
0.5 2.0 24.0 48.0 72.0
Relative abundance
0 20 40 60 80 100
120
AA
RA RR
P-values
Feeding regimen: 0.71 Birth weight: 0.68 Time postmortem:< 0.01
Intact talin
(225 kDa)
Meat Meat quality quality – – color of the LM color of the LM
feeding strategy
AA RA RR
L * (l ig h tn e s s )
0 45 50 55
a b a
feeding strategy
AA RA RR
b * (y e llo w n e s s )
0.0 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0
ab b a
Within a graph, bars that do not have common letters differ (P < 0.05)
