Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:34:17.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic and phenotypic parameters of Australian Large White and Landrace boars performance-tested when offered food ad libitum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. P. McPhee ,
P. J. Brennan  and
F. Duncalfe
C. P. McPhee
Affiliation:
Animal Research Institute, Dept of Primary Industries, Yeerongpilly, Queensland, Australia
P. J. Brennan
Affiliation:
Animal Research Institute, Dept of Primary Industries, Yeerongpilly, Queensland, Australia
F. Duncalfe
Affiliation:
Animal Research Institute, Dept of Primary Industries, Yeerongpilly, Queensland, Australia
Get access

Abstract

Genetic analyses were carried out on 935 Large White and 767 Land-race boars performance-tested from 25 kg to 80 kg live weight under individual andad libitumfeeding conditions. Traits analysed were daily weight gain (GR), feed conversion ratio (FCR), daily feed intake (FI) and subcutaneous fat depth (F). Genetic parameters were estimated from sire components obtained by conventional hierarchical analyses of variance and covariance.

Large White pigs grew faster, had higher intakes of feed and utilized it more efficiently than Landrace. There was no breed difference in fat depth. Heritabilities, pooled over both breeds, were 0·36 ± 0·10, 0·27±0·08, 0·62±0·13 and 0·47±0·11 for GR, FCR, FI and F respectively. Noteworthy among the correlation estimates were strong and positive correlations between FI and the other three traits. A positive genetic correlation between GR and FCR arose from a very high coefficient of genetic variation for FI.

Selection indexes emphasising efficiency of lean growth were constructed using some or all of the 4 traits as measured variables. Their use is expected to reduce FI and GR on feeding ad libitum. The results indicate the need to select pigs on the same level of feeding as that used in production.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , February 1979 , pp. 79 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cunningham, E. P. 1972. Theory and application of statistical selection methods. Proc. XIV British Poultry Breeders Round Table, Birmingham.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1960. Techniques for research in quantitative animal genetics. In Techniques and Procedures in Animal Production Research, pp. 56–105. American Society of Animal Production.Google Scholar
Eisen, E. J. 1977. Restricted selection index: an approach to selecting for feed efficiency. J. Anim. Sci. 44: 958–972.Google Scholar
Flock, D. K. 1970. Genetic parameters of German Landrace pigs estimated from different relationships. J. Anim. Sci. 30: 839–843.Google Scholar
Gower, J. C. 1962. Variance component estimation for unbalanced hierarchical classifications. Biometrics 18: 537–542.Google Scholar
Harrington, G. 1972. Fat measurement and conformation in the classification and grading of British pigs. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks. (Mimeograph)Google Scholar
Jonsson, P. and King, J. W. B. 1962. Sources of variation in Danish Landrace pigs at progeny-testing stations. Acta Agric. scand. 12: 68–80.Google Scholar
Kielanowski, J. 1968. The method of pig progeny testing applied in Poland. 1. General principles and physiological background. Proc. Meeting of the Sub-Commission of Pig Progeny Testing. 9th Study meeting Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod., Dublin.Google Scholar
McPhee, C. P. 1976. Economic returns from reducing backfat thickness in pigs by genetic and other means. Aust. J. exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 17: 399–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1972. Combined test selection index revision 1972. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks. (Mimeograph)Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1977. Pig Improvement Scheme Yearbook 1976–77. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Mills, D. and Gillies, K. 1977. Consider the alternatives. A guide to profitable pigfarming. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane. (Mimeograph)Google Scholar
Owen, J. B. and Morton, J. R. 1969. The association of food conversion ratio, age at slaughter and carcass quality in pigs fed ad libitum. Anim. Prod. 11: 317–324.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. 1959. The sampling variance of the genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics 15: 469–485.Google Scholar
Smith, C., King, J. W. B. and Gilbert, N. 1962. Genetic parameters of British Large White bacon pigs. Anim. Prod. 4: 128–143.Google Scholar
Smith, C. and Ross, G. J. S. 1965. Genetic parameters of British Landrace bacon pigs. Anim. Prod. 7: 291–301.Google Scholar
Sutherland, T. M. 1965. The correlation between feed efficiency and rate of gain, a ratio and its denominator. Biometrics 21: 739–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar