Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T05:27:05.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of overseas pig breeds using imported semen 1. Growth and carcass performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. A. Sutherland ,
A. J. Webb  and
J. W. B. King
R. A. Sutherland
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Food Research Council Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JQ
A. J. Webb
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Food Research Council Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JQ
J. W. B. King
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Food Research Council Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JQ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Although a given foreign breed may offer worthwhile genetic improvement, the cost of importing purebred stock makes its evaluation difficult. An experiment was performed in which the breeds compared were represented instead by semen from boars standing at national artificial insemination stations in their native countries. Contemporary groups of Large White × Norwegian Landrace females were inseminated, some with British Large White (LW) semen, and some with semen from Canadian Yorkshire (CY), Danish Landrace (DL), Norwegian Landrace (NL), or United States (American) Duroc (AD) or Yorkshire (AY). One pair (male castrate and gilt) from each litter was performance tested from 27 to 82 kg live weight fed ad libitum (AL), another pairwas tested over the same weight range but fed to a time-based scale (TS). The number of LW, CY, DL, AD, AY and NL sires used was 51, 12, 21, 7, 6 and 23 respectively; a total of 401 litterswas evaluated. The differences between the progeny of LW sires and those of CY, DL, AD, AY and NL were, respectively: in daily live-weight gain (g), AL, –30, 40, –80, –50, –40 (maximum s.E. 16) with no significant differences for TS; in food conversion ratio, AL,0·02, – 0·13, 0·03, –0·05, 0·00 and TS, 000, – 0·14, 0·05, –0·03, –0·06 (maximum S.E. 0·049 for both feeding regimens); in percentage of lean by weight in the rumpback joint, AL, –2·1, –1·9, –1·8, 2·3, –0·7 and TS, – 0·1, –0·9, –1·9, 3·0, – 1·4 (maximum s.E. 1·28 for both); in overall economic worth (pence per pig sired), AL, – 150, 50, – 170, 110, – 40 and TS, – 10, 100, – 200, 190, 30 (maximum s.E. 83 for both). The U.S. Yorkshire and Danish Landrace seem unlikely to be of use commercially in the U.K., while the most promising breeds, U.S. Duroc and Canadian Yorkshire, have not yet been evaluated with sufficient precision to reduce the risk involved in their use to an acceptable level.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 103 , Issue 3 , December 1984 , pp. 561 - 570
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

Coniffe, D. & Moran, M. A. (1972). Double sampling with regression in comparative studies of carcass composition. Biometrics 28, 1011–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, E. P. & Henderson, C. R. (1966). Analytical techniques for incomplete block experiments. Biometrics 22, 829–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuthbertson, A. (1968). Pig Industry Development Authority dissection techniques. Paper, European Association of Animal Production Symposium on Methods of Carcass Evaluation, Dublin. 10 pp. (mimeograph).Google Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. (1969). Experimental approaches to utilising breed resources. Animal Breeding Abstracts 37, 191–202.Google Scholar
Evans, D. G. & Kempster, A. J. (1979). A comparison of different predictors of lean content of pig carcasses. 2. Predictors for use in population studies and experiments. Animal Production 28, 97–108.Google Scholar
Fredeen, H. T., Hickman, C. G. & Stothart, J. G. (1969). Inbreeding and relationship for three breeds of pigs in Canada. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 49, 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, W. R. (1977). Users Guide for LSML 76. Ohio State University. 76 pp.Google Scholar
Henderson, C. R. (1953). Estimation of variance and covariance components. Biometrics 9, 226–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. K. (1981). Crossbreeding in swine: experimental results. Journal of Animal Science 52, 906–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. K., Omtvedt, I. T. & Walters, L. E. (1973). Evaluation of purebreds and two-breed crosses in swine: feedlot performance and carcass merit. Journal of Animal Science 37, 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. W. B. (1970). Organisation and practice of pig improvement in European countries. Animal Breeding Abstracts 38, 523–536.Google Scholar
King, J. W. B. (1975). Crossbreeding experiments at ABRO. Unpublished proceedings, Nordic symposium on crossbreeding in pigs, Copenhagen, 2 06 1974, pp. 46–63.Google Scholar
King, J. W. B., Curran, M. K., Standal, N., Power, P., Heaney, I. H., Kallweit, E., Schroder, J., Maijala, K., Kangasniemi, R. & Walstra, P. (1975). An international comparison of pig breeds using a common control stock. Livestock Production Science 2, 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pederson, O. K. (1979). Testing of breeding animals for meat production and meat quality. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Supplement 21, 122–135.Google Scholar
Smith, C. (1976). A note on the efficiency of different forms of comparisons among foreign breeds. Animal Production 6, 337–344.Google Scholar
Smith, C. (1977). Use of stored frozen semen and embryos to measure genetic trends in farm livestock. Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchlungsbiologie 94, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, R. A. (1984). Evaluation of overseas breeds using imported semen. 2. Prediction of carcass lean content. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103, 571–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar