Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:14:03.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of crossbred and purebred boars for progeny growth and carcass merit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. W. Kennedy  and
P. D. Conlon
B. W. Kennedy
Affiliation:
Macdonald College of McGill University, Ste-Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada HOA 1CO
P. D. Conlon
Affiliation:
Macdonald College of McGill University, Ste-Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada HOA 1CO
Get access

Abstract

Progeny tests of three Hampshire × Duroc, three Hampshire, three Duroc and five Landrace boars were performed to compare the use of crossbred and purebred boars producing pigs, intended for slaughter. Boars were double-mated to Landrace sows, and 830 sire-identified pigs from 92 double-mated litters were farrowed. Significant (P < 0·05) breed of boar effects were observed for birth weight, 21-day weight, daily gain from 56 days to slaughter and age at slaughter, but breed of boar differences for 56-day weight, backfat depth, killing-out percentage and carcass index were not significant. Progeny of the Hampshire × Duroc crossbred performed similarly to pigs sired by purebred Hampshire and Duroc boars. Progeny performance of the Hampshire × Duroc and Duroc boars was almost identical for daily gain, age at slaughter, backfat depth and carcass index. Hampshire-sired pigs grew slightly faster, but progeny of Hampshire × Duroc boars had higher killing-out percentages than either Hampshire- or Duroc-sired pigs. Purebred Landrace pigs were slower growing, had more backfat and lower carcass indexes than crossbred pigs sired by either the Hampshire × Duroc, Hampshire or Duroc boars.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , August 1978 , pp. 29 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1978

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

Conlon, P. D. and Kennedy, B. W. 1978. A comparison of crossbred and purebred boars for semen and reproductive characteristics. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 58: 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, M. K., Lean, I. J., Duckworth, J. E. and Holmes, W. 1972. Studies on Belgian Piètrain pigs. 2. A comparison of growth and carcass characteristics of Piètrain used in three-breed crosses with Landrace, La rge White and Hampshire breeds. Anim. Prod. 15: 11–19.Google Scholar
Fahmy, M. H. and Holtman, W. B. 1977. Evaluation of three- and four-breed cross litters and pigs sired by purebred and crossbred boars. Anim. Prod. 24: 261–270.Google Scholar
Fredeen, H. T. 1976. Recent trends in carcass performance of the commercial hog population in Canada. J.Anim. Sci. 42: 342–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, B. W., Moxley, J. E. and Saison, Ruth. 1974. Comparison of different breeding plans for evaluating sires and mating systems in swine. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 54: 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. W. B. and Thorpe, W. 1974. Experiments with Piètrain/Hampshire crossbred boars. Annls. Genet. Sel. anim. 6: 148 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Lishman, W. B., Smith, W. C., Bichard, M. and Thompson, R. 1975. The comparative performance of purebred and crossbred boars in commercial pig production. Anim. Prod. 21: 69–75.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. Sci. 23: 87–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saison, Ruth and Mosley, J. E. 1966. The use of blood groups as markers in a double mating program in swine and evidence for preferential fertilization. Proc. 10th Eur. Anim. Blood Grp. Conf., Paris, pp. 171–174.Google Scholar
Searle, S. R. 1971. Linear Models. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Sellier, P. 1973. [Usefulness for crossbreeding of West French White × Piètrain and Piètrain boars.] Journees de Recherche porcine en France, pp. 165–172.Google Scholar