Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:20:00.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Genotype-environment interactions in a herd of bacon pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. W. Hale
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Northern Ireland and the Queen's University of Belfast
W. E. Coey
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Northern Ireland and the Queen's University of Belfast

Extract

It seems safe to say that all official performance testing and progeny testing schemes for bacon pigs, up to the present, have been based on an implicit assumption that the pigs found to be superior under the management methods at the testing station would also be superior under other systems of management on commercial farms. If consideration is limited to reasonably good standards of management there is probably little danger in this assumption, though there is little direct evidence as yet to support it. The danger of mistakes in the selection of superior genotypes would be more likely to arise if there were systematic differences between the methods of management at the testing stations and on commercial farms. Actually such a difference does occur as regards methods of feeding. At testing stations, the pigs are generally fed more or less to appetite, being given as much as they will readily clear up in two feeds per day in England (N.P.B.A., 1957) and Northern Ireland (Heaney, 1962) and in three feeds per day in Denmark (Clausen & Thomsen, 1957). In the Republic of Ireland (Department of Agriculture, 1960) three feeds per day are given on a scale which must involve little, if any, restriction in the later stages of fattening. Such practices have the object of discovering the strains which become too fat before they reach bacon weights. Many farmers, on the other hand, adopt some form of restriction during the later stages of fattening, with the object of finishing the pigs at the right stage of fatness, and thus of improving the grading of the carcases at the factory.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland (1955/1956). Annual Report, 29, 6.Google Scholar
Aunan, W. J., Hanson, L. E. & Meade, R. J. (1961). J. Anim. Sci. 20, 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R. & Foot, A. S. (1942). J. Agric. Sci. 32, 72.Google Scholar
Braude, R., Townsend, M. J., Harrington, G. & Rowell, J. G. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 51, 208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunstad, G. E. & Fowler, S. H. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausen, H. & Thomsen, R. N. (1957). 45. Beretning om sammenlignende forseg med svin fra statsanerkendte avlscentre, 1955–56.Google Scholar
Cole, C. L. (1957). Diss. Abstr. 17, 461.Google Scholar
Cummings, J. N. & Winters, L. M. (1951). Tech. Bull. Minn. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 195.Google Scholar
Department of Agriculture (1960). Pig Progeny Testing: Report on Fifth Test at Cork station.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. (1940). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1960). Genet. Res. (Camb.), 1, 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. & Latyszewski, M. (1952). J. Genet. 51, 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishwick, V. C. (1936). J. Minist. Agric. 43, 235.Google Scholar
Fowler, S. H. & Ensminger, M. E. (1960). J. Anim. Sci. 19, 434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, S. H. & Ensminger, M. E. (1961). Tech. Bull. Wash. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 34.Google Scholar
Gregory, K. E. & Dickerson, G. E. (1952). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 493.Google Scholar
Hale, R. W. & Coey, W. E. (1962). VIIIth Int. Congr. Anim. Prod., Hamburg, 1961. Final Report, p. 142.Google Scholar
Heaney, I. H. (1962). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Hull, P. & Gowe, R. S. (1962). Genetics, 47, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonsson, P. (1959). Acta Agric. Scand. 9, 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristjansson, F. K. (1957). Canad. J. Anim. Sci. 37, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, H. A., Oliver, A. W. & Potter, E. L. (1932). Bull. Ore. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 297.Google Scholar
Lucas, I. A. M. & Calder, A. F. C. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 47, 287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMeegan, C. P. (1940). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
N.P.B.A. Progeny Testing Research Co. Ltd. (1957). Progeny Testing Report, vol. 3.Google Scholar
Omtvedt, I. T., Whatley, J. A. (Jr)., Whiteman, J. V. & Morrison, R. D. (1962). J. Anim. Sci. 21, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmela, A. B. (1958). Diss. Abstr. 19, 7.Google Scholar
Salmela, A. B., Rempel, W. E. & Comstock, R. E. (1960). J. Anim. Sci. 19, 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, W. M. & Dickerson, G. E. (1952). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta., no. 511.Google Scholar
Weaver, L. A. & Bogart, R. (1944). Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. Circular 290.Google Scholar