Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:51:55.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crossbreeding and litter production in British pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. Smith  and
J. W. B. King
C. Smith
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh 9
J. W. B. King
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh 9
Get access

Extract

The litter production of various purebred and crossbred groups of pigs were studied in data collected from 1959 to 1961 on some 34,800 litters recorded on over 800 farms in Britain. A least squares analysis was performed to obtain within-farm estimates of performance for five litter traits in sixteen specified breeding groups and to analyse the total variation in litter performance.

The ranking of the purebreds and crossbreds is presented. In general there was a lower mortality in crossbred litters which had 2 % more pigs at birth and 5 % more pigs at weaning than purebred litters. The total litter weight at weaning was 10% greater in crossbred litters. Crossbred sows showed more heterosis with 5 % more pigs at birth, 8 % more pigs at weaning and an advantage of 11 % in total litter weight at weaning.

Farm differences accounted for a major portion of the total variation n i litter production, 8–9% for litter numbers and 15–25% for litter weights. On the other hand the interactions of farms and breeding groups, though highly significant, contributed only 1–2% of the total variation in litter production.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , October 1964 , pp. 265 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1964

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

Cobb, E. H., 1958. Comparative performance of purebred and crossbred swine on Pennsylvania farms. Diss. Abstr., 18: 1918.Google Scholar
Fredeen, H. T., 1957. Crossbreeding and swine production. Anim. Breed. Abstr., 25: 339.Google Scholar
Gaines, J. A. & Hazel, L. N., 1957. Differences in litter size and growth rate among purebred and crossbred swine. J. Anim. Sci., 16: 1066. (Abstr.)Google Scholar
Kabanov, V. D., 1961. [Effectiveness of simple criss-crossing with Landrace and Large White pigs.] Zivotnovodstvo, 23: (3): 74. [In Russian.] [Anim. Breed. Abstr., 29, no. 1548.]Google Scholar
Koh, F. K., 1958. Crossbreeding swine for pork production in Taiwan. Reprinted from Taiwan Sugar, 5 (6). [Anim. Breed Abstr., 27, no. 1422.]Google Scholar
Lauprecht, E., 1957. Über das Verhalten der Nachkommen aus Paarungen verschiedener Rassen des Schweines. Z. Tierz.ZüchtBiol., 70: 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lush, J. L. & Molln, A. E., 1942. Litter size and weight as permanent characteristics of sows. Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric, no. 836.Google Scholar
P.I.D.A., 1961., The pig industry in Great Britain in 1960—a sample survey of 1,500 herds. [London]: Pig Industry Development Authority. [Mimeograph.]Google Scholar
Searle, S. R., 1961. Estimating the heritability of butter fat production. J. agric. Sci., 57: 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, S. R. & Henderson, C. R., 1961. Computing procedure for estimating components of variance in the two-way classification, mixed model. Biometrics, 17: 607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skårman, S., 1961a. [Crossbreeding with pigs.] Svenska Svinavelsfüren. Tidskr., 1961. (7/8): 142.Google Scholar
Skårman, S., 1961b. Heterosis in crossbreeding experiments with pigs. Z. Tierz. ZüchtBiol., 75: 215.Google Scholar
Willham, R. L., 1960. Genetic differences in litter size and average litter weight from a polyallel cross of seven breeds of swine. Diss. Abstr., 21: 401.Google Scholar
Winters, L. M., Kiser, O. M., Jordan, P. S. & Peters, W. H., 1935. A six years' study of crossbreeding swine. Bull. Minn, agric. Exp. Sta., no. 320.Google Scholar