Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T08:50:13.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Index selection for improved growth and carcass characteristics in a population of Large White pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. Ellis ,
J. P. Chadwick ,
W. C. Smith  and
R. Laird
M. Ellis
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
J. P. Chadwick
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
W. C. Smith
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
R. Laird
Affiliation:
West of Scotland Agricultural College, Auchincruive, Ayr KA6 5HW
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was carried out over 11 years to investigate selection for economy of production and carcass lean content under ad libitum feeding in Large White pigs. Two lines, a selection (S) and a control (C) line, were involved in the study. The S line comprised 80 females and 10 males and was based at two centres. Boars were performance tested centrally at one of the centres and gilts were on-farm tested. Testing was carried out in groups of two or three full-sibs over the live-weight range 27 o t 87 kg. Selection was based on an index (I) incorporating individual daily live-weight gain (DLWG) and ultrasonically measured backfat thickness (USBF) and a group food conversion ratio (FCR) and generations were overlapping. The C line (32 females and 16 males) was maintained at one centre and males were performance tested alongside S boars to monitor genetic progress. Cumulative realized selection differentials over years 1 to 10 were equivalent to 5·5, 51, 7·0 and 9·4 phenotypic standard deviations for DLWG, USBF, FCR and I respectively and generation intervals averaged 17·0 months. There was little genetic change in DLWG, however, USBF, FCR and I showed substantial improvements with cumulative responses in year 11 of —12·3 mm, —0·22 kg/kg and +45·2 points respectively. The reduction in USBF occurred in the first half of the study with no further improvements being achieved after year 6. This study illustrates the effectiveness of index selection for a limited number of economically important traits but highlights limitations to this approach.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 265 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1988

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

Becker, W. A. 1984. Manual of Quantitative Genetics. Pullman, Washington.Google Scholar
Bernard, C. and Fahmy, M. H. 1970. Effect of selection on feed utilization and carcass score in swine. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 50: 575–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadwkk, J. P. 1977. Selection for economy of production and carcass lean content in Large White pigs and its influence on meat quality characteristics. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1969. Techniques for research in quantitative animal genetics. In Techniques and Procedures in Animal Science Research, pp. 36–79. American Society of Animal Science.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. and Grimks, J. C. 1947. Effectiveness of selection for efficiency of gain in Duroc swine. Journal of Animal Science 6: 265–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, M., Smith, W. C., Henderson, R., Whitemore, C. T. and Laird, R. 1983. Comparativ e performance and body composition of control and selection line Large White pigs. 2. Feeding to appetite for a fixed time. Animal Production 36: 407–413.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1960. Introduction to Quantitive Genetics. Oliver and Boyd, London.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R., Bichard, M. and Pease, A. 1976. Objectives in pig breeding. Animal Production 23: 365–387.Google Scholar
Fredeen, H. T. 1975. Future aspects in breeding a modern meat type pig. Proceedings of Festskrift til Hjalmar Clausen, Dpt. Kgl, Danske Landhusholdingsselskab, Copenhagen, pp. 49–71.Google Scholar
Glodek, P. 1982. Selection responses in pigs: results and implications. Proceedings of 2nd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Vol. 5, pp. 568–577. Editorial Garsi, Madrid.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1977. Users guide for LSML76. Mixed model least-squares and maximum likelihood computer program. Ohio State University, Columbus. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Hetzer, H. O. and Harvey, W. R. 1967. Selection for high and low fatness in swine. Journal of Animal Science 26: 1244–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, W. G. 1972. Estimation of genetic change. II. Experimental evaluation of control populations. Animal Breeding Abstracts 40: 193–213.Google Scholar
Hill, W. G. 1980. Design of quantitative genetic selection experiments. In Selection Experiments in Laboratory and Domestic Animals (ed. Robertson, A.), pp. 1–13. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Jonsson, P. 1975. Methods of pig improvement through breeding in the European countries: a review. Livestock Production Science 2: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juncjst, S. B., Christian, L. L. and Khiilers, D. L. 1981. Response to selection for feed efficiency in individually led Yorkshire boars. Journal of Animal Science 53: 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. W. B. and Roberts, R. C. 1959. The effects of inbreeding on carcass traits in the bacon pig. Animal Production 1: 123–127.Google Scholar
Laird, R., Arnot, D. P. and Ellis, M. 1983. Voluntary food intake (appetite) in the Newcastle/West of Scotland selection line of Large White pigs. Animal Production 36: 535–536 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Lindhe, B.Averdunk, G., Brascamp, E. W., Duniec, H., Gajic, I. M., Llgauli, C. and Steane, D. E. 1980. Report of a working group of the Commission on Animal Genetics. Livestock Production Science 7: 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, G., Bichard, M. and Smith, W. C. 1971. Comparative performance levels of boars from different selection backgrounds. Animal Production 13: 392–393 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Mcphee, C. P. 1981. Selection for efficient lean growth n i a pig herd. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32: 681–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcphee, C. P., Brennan, P. J. and Duncalfe, F. 1979. Genetic and phenotypic parameters of Australian Large White and Landrace boars performance-tested when offered food ad libitum. Animal Production 28: 79–85.Google Scholar
Mitchell, G., Smith, C., Makower, M. and Bird, P. J. W. N. 1982. An economic appraisal of pig improvement in Great Britain. 1. Genetic and production aspects. Animal Production 35: 215–224.Google Scholar
Morris, C. A. 1975. Genetic relationships of reproduction with growth and with carcass traits in British pigs. Animal Production 20: 31–44.Google Scholar
Pease, A. 1965. Combined testing. Recommendations for the selection index (Pig Industry Development Authority). Paper DA/188. Meat and Livestock Commission. Bletchley, Milton Keynes. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Webb, A. J. 1980. The incidence of halothane sensitivity in British pigs. Animal Production 31: 101–105.Google Scholar
Webb, A. J. 1981. The halothane sensitivity test. Proceedings of Symposium on Porcine Stress and Meat Quality — Causes and Possible Solutions to the Problems, Refsnes Gods, Jeloy, Norway, 1980, pp. 105–124. Agricultural Food Research Society, As.Google Scholar
Webb, A. L. and Jordan, C. H. C. 1978. Halothane sensitivity as a field test for stress-susceptibility in the pig. Animal Production 26: 157–168.Google Scholar
Webb, A. J. and King, J. W. B. 1979. The influenc e of weaning regime on central testing station performance of pigs. Animal Production 29: 203–212.Google Scholar
Webb, A. J. and King, J. W. B. 1983. Selection for improved food conversion ratio on ad libitum group feeding in pigs. Animal Production 37: 375–385.Google Scholar
Webb, A. J., Russell, W. S. and Sales, D. I. 1983. Genetics of leg weakness in performance-tested boars. Animal Production 36: 117–130.Google Scholar
Wyllie, D., Morton, J. R. and Owen, J. B. 1979. Genetic aspects of voluntary food intake in the pig and their association with gain and food conversion efficiency. Animal Production 28: 381–390.Google Scholar