Table 2.
Summary of studies investigating the effects of marketing weight on carcass characteristics (changes per 10 kg marketing weight increase)1
| Subprimal yield, % | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference | Marketing wt, kg | Yield, % | Backfat, mm | Fat-free lean, % | LM2 area, cm2 | Length, cm | Belly | Loin | Shoulder | Ham |
| Hansson (1975) | 68,88,108,128 | 0.84 | 2.1 | −1.03 | 1.7 | 3.1 | – | – | – | – |
| Carr et al. (1978) | 45,68,91,114,136 | – | 2.0 | −1.00 | 2.2 | 2.4 | – | – | – | −0.09 |
| Neely et al. (1979) | 100,113,127 | – | 1.0 | 0.07 | 2.0 | 1.9 | – | – | – | – |
| Sather et al. (1980)and Martin et al. (1980) | 73,84,98,109,123,134 | – | – | −0.47 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 0.53 | – | −0.48 | −0.20 |
| Shields et al. (1983) | 56,76,90,107,127,146 | 1.05 | 2.8 | – | 1.7 | 2.3 | 0.12 | −0.19 | −0.15 | −0.28 |
| Kanis et al. (1990) | 100,140 | – | 1.1 | −0.55 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Gu et al. (1991 and 1992) | 100,114,127 | 0.34 | 3.0 | −1.09 | 1.1 | 2.3 | – | – | – | – |
| Johnston et al. (1993) | 105,127 | 0.05 | 0.9 | −0.18 | 2.7 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Crome et al. (1996) | 107,125 | 0.33 | 2.1 | – | 1.2 | 2.1 | 0.61 | −0.18 | – | 0.14 |
| Cisneros et al. (1996) | 100,115,130,145,160 | 0.32 | 1.6 | – | 1.8 | 1.9 | 0.09 | 0.40 | −0.18 | −0.16 |
| Leach et al. (1996) | 110,125,140 | 0.16 | 1.4 | −1.59 | 0.1 | 1.7 | 0.45 | −0.38 | 0.08 | −0.19 |
| Weatherup et al. (1998) 3 | 92,103,113,125 | 0.68 | 1.6 | −1.28 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Weatherup et al. (1998) 4 | 92,103,113,125 | 0.35 | 1.5 | 0.09 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Beattie et al. (1999) | 96,108,121,133 | 0.29 | – | – | 2.2 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Wagner et al. (1999) | 25,45,64,84,100,129,152 | 0.67 | 2.3 | −0.77 | 2.3 | 2.7 | – | −0.09 | – | −0.19 |
| Latorre et al. (2003) | 122,136 | 0.29 | 0.5 | – | – | 2.1 | – | −0.21 | −0.21 | −0.36 |
| Virgili et al. (2003) | 144,182 | 0.34 | – | – | 1.5 | – | – | −0.29 | −0.32 | −0.19 |
| Latorre et al. (2004) | 116,124,133 | 0.77 | 2.9 | – | – | 2.4 | – | – | −0.29 | 0.04 |
| Piao et al. (2004) | 100,110,120,130 | −0.49 | 0.9 | 0.05 | 2.3 | 3.1 | – | – | – | – |
| Correa et al. (2008) | 107,115,125 | 0.41 | – | – | – | 2.0 | 0.13 | −0.12 | 0.12 | −0.28 |
| Corino et al. (2008) | 111,160 | 0.38 | 2.0 | −1.85 | – | – | – | −0.06 | – | – |
| Latorre et al. (2008) | 120,125,130,135,140 | 0.48 | 2.5 | – | – | 1.3 | – | −0.18 | −0.02 | −0.34 |
| Serrano et al. (2008) | 145,156 | 0.91 | 1.2 | – | – | – | – | −0.18 | 0.09 | 0.36 |
| Shull (2013) Exp.1 | 75,91,106,121,134,147,168 | – | 1.7 | – | 2.6 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Shull (2013) Exp.2 | 115,124,134, 145,157,166,176 | 0.43 | 1.8 | −1.36 | 1.9 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Average5 | – | 0.41 | 1.8 | −0.78 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 0.32 | −0.13 | −0.16 | −0.17 |
1
Generated by simple linear regression analyses by EXCEL.
2
LM = longissimus muscle.
3
Individual housing was evaluated.
4
Group housing was evaluated.
5
Study by Serrano et al. (2008) was excluded from calculation due to the use of Iberian obese pig breed which was uncommonly used in north America pig production.