Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.50

  • SJR 0.263

  • Impact Factor 0.4 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 51 issue 1 (february 2017) : 175-178

Effect of sex on growth performance, nutrient utilization and carcass characteristics in cross bred pigs

Gowher Gull Sheikh*1, R.P.S. Baghel2, Sunil Nayak2, Aijaz Ahmad Ganie3
1<p>D&eacute;partement of Animal Nutrition,&nbsp;Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Jabalpur-482 001, India.</p>
Cite article:- Sheikh*1 Gull Gowher, Baghel2 R.P.S., Nayak2 Sunil, Ganie3 Ahmad Aijaz (2017). Effect of sex on growth performance, nutrient utilizationand carcass characteristics in cross bred pigs . Indian Journal of Animal Research. 51(1): 175-178. doi: 10.18805/ijar.v0iOF.7004.

A study was carried on 24 piglets (Large White York Shire × Desi) of an average initial weight of 20 kg of three gender groups, barrows, boars and gilts consisted of eight pigs each, of comparable body weight fattened from 20-48 kilograms (growing) to 49-96 kilograms (finishing) to see the effect of gender on growth performance, nutrient utilization and carcass traits. When comparing feed intake at the growing stage, gilts consumed significantly more (P<0.05) feed than boars and barrows. There was no significant difference in average daily weight gain among barrows, boars and gilts in growing and finishing stage. Gilts had significantly higher (P<0.05) feed conversion ratio than boars in growing period and barrows in finishing period. Nutrient digestibility was similar except crude protein among groups. Fasting weight and weight after bleeding was significantly lower (P<0.05) in gilts with nonsignificant difference between barrows and boars. Sex has no significant effect on evisceration weight, dressing percentage and carcass length in pigs. Carcass backfat of barrows was significantly thicker (P<0.05) than that of boars and gilts, however, the loin eye area was significantly larger (P<0.05) in gilts than boars and barrows. There were no significant differences among groups concerning the proportions of ham, under cut, bacon and rib chop  however, shoulder and loin percentages were higher (P<0.05) in gilts than boars and barrows. 

  1. AOAC. 2000. Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., Arligton, VA.

  2. Blanchard, P.J., Ellis, M., Warkup, C.C., Chardwick, J.P. and Willis, M.B. (1999). The influence of sex (boar and gilt) on growth, carcass and pork eating quality characteristics. J. Anim. Sci., 68: 487-93.

  3. Brooks, C.C. (2014). Effect of sex, fat, fiber, molasses and thyroprotein on digestibility of nutrients and performance of growing swine. J. Anim. Sci., 26:495-499.

  4. Ellis, M., Webb, A.J., Avery, P.J. and Brown, N. (1996). The influence of terminal sire genotype, sex, slaughter weight, feeding regime and slaughter house on growth performance and carcass and meat quality in pigs and on the organoleptic properties of fresh pork. J. Anim. Sci., 62: 521-30.

  5. Henry, Y.B., Seve, Mounier, A. and Ganier, P. (1996). Growth performance and brain neurotransmitters in pigs as affected by tryptophan, protein and sex. J. Anim. Sci., 74, 2700.

  6. I.C.A.R. (1998). Nutrient requirements of domestic animals. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

  7. Johansen, S., Hakanssonm, J. and Anderson, K. (1993). Effect of selecting for increased lean tissue growth rate in swine on low or high dietary protein levels. J. Anim. Sci., 71: 1203-8.

  8. Kumar, A. and Barsaul, C. S. (1991). Evaluation of best sex and economic slaughter weight standard feeding in large white pigs under Indian conditions. Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 4: 227-30.

  9. Ly, J. (2008). Studies on factors affecting faecal output in growing pigs. An approach to the effect of level of feed intake and of sex. Revista Computadorizada de Producción Porcina. 15: 255- 260.

  10. McPhee, C. P. and MacBeth, M. (2000). A profit model for estimating economic values of traits in the National Pig Improvement Program, PDRC DAG58/1339 final report.

  11. Noblet, J., Shi, X. S. and Karege, C. (1993). Comparative digestibility of energy and nutrients in growing pigs fed ad libitum and adults sows fed at maintenance. Livest. Prod. Sci., 34:137-152.

  12. Phugphong, B. (1989). Swine Production, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, 299.

  13. Ramirez, R. and Cava, R. (2007). Carcass composition and meat quality of three different Iberian × Duroc genotype pigs. Meat Sci., 75:388–396.

  14. Sather, A.P., Jones, S.D.M. and Joyal, S. (1991). Feedlot performance, carcass composition and pork quality from entire male and female Landrace and Large White market weight pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 71: 29-42.

  15. Serrano, M.P., Valencia, D.G., Fuentetaj, A., Lázaro, R.and Mateos, G.G. (2008). Effect of gender and castration of females and slaughter weight on performance and carcass and meat quality of Iberian pigs reared under intensive management systems. Meat Sci., 80: 1122-1128.

  16. USDA. (1970). Slaughtering cutting and processing of pork on the farm. Farmers’ Bulletin NO. 2138 United States Department of Agriculture.

  17. Vasupen, K. (2007). Nutritional studies in natives, Thai Kadon pigs. Thesis Dr. Sci. University of Utrecht (Utrecht). 119p.

  18. Weatherup, R.N., Beattie, V.E., Moss, B.W., Kilpatrick, D.J. and Walker, N. (1998). The effect of increasing slaughter weight on the production performance and meat quality of finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci., 67: 591-600.

  19. Webster, A.J.F. (1977). Selection for leanness and energetic efficiency of growth in meat animals. Proc. Nutr. Soc., 36: 53-59.


Editorial Board

View all (0)