Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T23:19:28.358Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of post-weaning growth in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. D. Buchanan Smith  and
H. P. Donald
A. D. Buchanan Smith
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh
H. P. Donald
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The post-weaning growth of 135 litters has been analysed with a view to determining the relationship of certain arbitrary subdivisions with each other. For this purpose, the weight increases during three periods of 28 days have been denned in two ways—first, by age, the periods being 10–14, 14–18, and 18–22 weeks, and secondly, by weight, the periods beginning at 40, 80 and 120 lb. and continuing as before for 4 weeks.

2. When the periods are defined by age, the mean increase per pig per litter is affected by weaning weight, but not by litter size (Table III). The variability of the individual increases becomes greater as the pigs become older and heavier (that is, passing from one period to a later one), but less within a period as the rate of growth increases (Table IV). It was not affected by litter size.

3. The distribution of individual weights became increasingly skew with age. This is regarded as a graphical illustration of the fact that while absolute rate of growth is increasing, initially small animals must fall farther and farther behind (Graph 3).

4. The correlations between the average litter increases in different periods were calculated for litter sizes 6–11. In general, the coefficient for periods 1 and 2 was about 0·4, and for periods 2 and 3 about 0·6 (Table VI). This is interpreted to mean that, when judged by results over the whole time under observation, litters with a high correlation between the increases in weight during short periods are not properly comparable with those with a low correlation. By this method, differences in rate of growth having an important influence on carcass quality may be obscured.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , April 1939 , pp. 274 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1939

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

Axelsson, J. (1933) Z. Zücht. B, 28, 157.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, S. (1929). Svenska Svinavelsfören. Tidskr.Google Scholar
Berge, S. (1936). Meld. Norg. Landbr Høisk. 16, 641.Google Scholar
Callow, E. H. (1935). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 3, 80.Google Scholar
Day, B. & Fisher, R. A. (1937). Ann. Eugen., Lond., 7, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. P. (1937). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 5, 349.Google Scholar
Dunlop, G. (1933). J. agric. Sci. 23, 580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1936). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. 6th ed.Edinburgh.Google Scholar
French, M. H. & Emson, H. E. (1936). E. Afr. agric. J. 2, 241.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1932 a). J.R. agric. Soc. 93, 131.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1932 b). Orowth and Development of Mutton Qualities in the Sheep. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. & Murray, G. N. (1937). J. agric. Sci. 27, 394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husby, M. (1933). Meld. Norg. Landbr Høisk. 35, 92.Google Scholar
Kapteyn, J. C. (1903). Skew Frequency Curves in Biology and Statistics. Gröningen.Google Scholar
Kliesch, J. (1936). Z. Schweinez. 43, 143.Google Scholar
Lush, J. L. (1936). Res. Bull. la agric. Exp. Sta. 204.Google Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1937). N.Z. J. Agric. 54, 147, 223.Google Scholar
Mansfield, W. S., Trehane, W. R. & Peacock, R. B. (1937). J.R. agric. Soc. 98, 172.Google Scholar
Menzies-Kitchin, A. W. (1937). J. agric. Sci. 27, 611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, N. (1936). Z. Schweinez. 43, 711.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J., Lauprecht, E. & Winzenburger, W. (1934). Züchiungskunde, 9, 201, 287.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J. & Zimmermann, C. (1934). Z. Schweinez. 41, 387.Google Scholar
Shaw, A. M. & MacEwan, J. W. G. (1936). Sci. Agric. 16, 322.Google Scholar
Smith, A. D. B. & Donald, H. P. (1937). J. agric. Sci. 27, 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vecchi, M. (1934). Nuova Vet. 12, 216.Google Scholar
Wenck, E. (1931). Z. Zücht. A, 22, 1.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E., Evans, R. E., Callow, E. H. & Wishart, J. (1936). J. agric. Sci. 26, 546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar