Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:12:52.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The comparative performance of purebred and crossbred boars in commercial pig production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

W. B. Lishman ,
W. C. Smith ,
M. Bichard  and
R. Thompson
W. B. Lishman
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
W. C. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
M. Bichard
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
R. Thompson
Affiliation:
ARC Unit of Statistics, University of Edinburgh
Get access

Summary

An investigation was undertaken to evaluate the crossbred boar per se, and also to assess the value of including the American Hampshire into a first-cross sire. Groups of three boars were placed on each of 20 farms. Each group contained a purebred white (Landrace or Large White), a crossbred white and a crossbred Hampshire boar. Co-operators were asked to obtain at least six litters by each boar, record their performance to weaning, and provide a sample of the progeny of each boar to be reared under standard conditions to slaughter at 90 kg live weight. Breeding of the boars did not affect either the level or variability of litter performance. Differences in performance and carcass traits between the progeny of purebred and whitecross boars were found only for ‘eye-muscle’ area and fat depth ‘C’. Pigs sired by Hampshire-cross boars had carcasses which were 2% shorter than those from white boars.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , August 1975 , pp. 69 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1975

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

Cuthbertson, A. and Pease, A. H. R. 1968. The inter-relationships of various measurements, visual assessments and dissection results of pigs of 200 lb live weight. Anim. Prod. 10: 249–255.Google Scholar
Frape, D. L., Wilkinson, J., Chubb, L. C. and Wolf, K. L. 1970. A growth and economy comparison of two crosses of pigs when fed ad libitum and to a scale and slaughtered at two weights. Anim. Prod. 12: 307–322.Google Scholar
King, J. W. B., 1966. The place of new breeds. In Breeding for Pig Improvement. Proc. Conf. Pig Industry Development Authority, London.Google Scholar
King, J. W. B. 1968. [The hybridization of pigs]. Stocarstvo 22: 485–493.Google Scholar
King, J. W. B. 1973. Retarded growth in Hampshire piglets. Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. New Series 2: 76–77 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
King, J. W. B. and Thorpe, W. 1974. Experiments with Pietrain/Hampshire crossbred boars. Annls Génét. Sel. anim. 6: 148 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kramer, C. L. 1956. Extension of multiple range tests to group means with unequal numbers of replications. Biometrics 12: 307–310.Google Scholar
Rempel, W. E., Comstock, R. E. and Enfield, F. D. 1964. Comparison of performance of crossbred pigs sired by purebred and crossbred boars. J. Anim. Set 23: 87–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seller, P., Dufour, D. and Rousseau, G. 1971. A study of sexual precocity and some ejaculate characteristics in boars from 5 genetic types: some results. Annls Genet. Sel. anim. 3: 357–365.Google Scholar
Smith, W. C., Barkes, J. N. and Tonks, H. M. 1973. The relative peformance and carcass characteristics of pigs sired by Hampshire and Large White boars. Anim. Prod. 17: 59–64.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1967. Statistical Methods. 6th ed. Iowa State Univ. Press. Ames, la.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. and Illius, A. W. 1974. A note on the growth of early-weaned Hampshire piglets. Anim. Prod. 19: 389–392.Google Scholar