2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.05.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performances and meat quality of two Italian pig breeds fed diets for commercial hybrids

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

10
29
2

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
10
29
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The differences between breeds for back fat thickness remained when comparing the thickness / body weight ratio (mm kg −1 ): 0.379 mm kg −1 in our study vs. 0.177 to 0.298 (Cunningham et al, 1973) or 0.271 mm kg −1 (Moeller et al, 1998). However, some local breeds have values close to those found in our study: 0.327 mm kg −1 in Nero Siciliano (Pugliese et al, 2003), 0.363 mm kg −1 in Cinta Senese (Franci et al, 2005), 0.308 mm kg −1 in Casertana, and 0.359 mm kg −1 in Mora (Fortina et al, 2005). This could be primarily due to the differences in slaughter weight, breed and feeding of the animals, factors that significantly influence the back fat thickness (Schinckel et al, 2002;Serrano et al, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…The differences between breeds for back fat thickness remained when comparing the thickness / body weight ratio (mm kg −1 ): 0.379 mm kg −1 in our study vs. 0.177 to 0.298 (Cunningham et al, 1973) or 0.271 mm kg −1 (Moeller et al, 1998). However, some local breeds have values close to those found in our study: 0.327 mm kg −1 in Nero Siciliano (Pugliese et al, 2003), 0.363 mm kg −1 in Cinta Senese (Franci et al, 2005), 0.308 mm kg −1 in Casertana, and 0.359 mm kg −1 in Mora (Fortina et al, 2005). This could be primarily due to the differences in slaughter weight, breed and feeding of the animals, factors that significantly influence the back fat thickness (Schinckel et al, 2002;Serrano et al, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Average daily gain was lower in our study than that recorded by Fortina et al (2005), Renaudeau & Mourot (2007) and Galián et al (2009) in others autochthonous pig breeds, so that the Creole BEC, reared indoors or outdoors, needs longer to reach the same weights than these breeds. During the growing period, average daily gain tends to increase although these results were not in agreement with those provided by Latorre et al (2008).…”
Section: Growth Performancecontrasting
confidence: 76%
“…In our study, feed conversion ratio was slightly higher than that recorded (4.2) by Fortina et al (2005) in Casertana and Mora Romagnola breeds reared indoors, fed using diets formulated for commercial hybrid pigs and slaughtered at<60 kg of live weight. The differences between rearing systems (4.54 vs 3.72 for C and SC, respectively) could be attributed to differences in digestibility of diets and given that part of the diet of the SC pigs could not be controlled.…”
Section: Growth Performancecontrasting
confidence: 71%
“…As expected, CT were fatter than DU and LW pigs, both for backfat thickness and fatty cut yield (P<0.05), while LW and DU pigs had higher (P<0.05) lean meat, and shoulder, loin and neck percentages, as well as lean cut yield and lean cuts/fatty cuts ratio. Comparable measurements for backfat thickness were found by Fortina et al (2005) and Pietrolà et al (2006) on CT pigs and by Franci et al (2005) on Cinta Senese pigs, slaughtered at different ages and weights. Moreover, significant differences (P<0.05) were detectable among genetic groups with regard to loin eye depth with LW>DU>CT.…”
Section: Growth and Slaughter Performancementioning
confidence: 77%
“…Recently investigations were performed in order to better characterize genes involved in fattening (Dal Monego et al, 2007;Daniele et al, 2008). However, very few data are available on growth and carcass composition of the CT breed (Fortina et al, 2005;Pietrolà et al, 2006;Maiorano et al, 2007). In addition, some studies on skeletal development of pig reported that the genotype influences the evolution of the metacarpal growth plate and, consequently, the development of long bones strictly related to composition of gain (muscle/fat/bone ratio) and therefore carcass quality (Field et al, 1990a;Filetti et al, 2003).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%