Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:47:57.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluation of performance at slaughter of twenty combinations of three-breed crosses of pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. H. Fahmy
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada and Laval University, Canada
W. B. Holtmann
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada and Laval University, Canada
T. M. MacIntyre
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada and Laval University, Canada
Get access

Summary

Two castrated male pigs from each of 620 litters were fed ad libitum to 90 kg market weight at three stations. The pigs represented 20 three-breed crosses produced by mating Yorkshire, Landrace, Lacombe, Hampshire and Duroc sires to Landrace-Yorkshire, Hampshire-Landrace, Large Black-Lacombe, Large Black-Landrace, Duroc-Lacombe and Duroc-Yorkshire dams. The data on feed conversion, average daily gain, age at slaughter, backfat thickness and area of loin eye muscle were analysed by least-squares.

Within breed cross of dam, pigs sired by Hampshire were consistently superior in feed conversion, carcass quality and in 3 crosses out of 5 had the fastest growth rate during the fattening period. They were, however, the oldest at 90 kg live weight. Pigs sired by Duroc ranked second in carcass quality and growth rate, whereas those sired by Landrace had the slowest growth rate. The pigs produced by Hampshire-Landrace sows were superior in carcass quality but inferior in feed conversion and growth to those from sows of the other five crosses.

In descending order, the four highest ranking crosses based on an index combining average daily gain, backfat thickness and feed efficiency were Hampshire × (Landrace-Yorkshire), Hampshire × (Duroc-Lacombe), Duroc × (Landrace-Yorkshire) and Hampshire × (Large Black-Landrace).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1976

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

Bichard, M. and Smith, W. C. 1972. Crossbreeding and genetic improvement. In Pig Production (ed. Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 3752. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1973. Inbreeding and heterosis in animals. In Proc. Anim. Breed. Genet. Symp., Blacksburg, Virginia, pp. 5477. American Society of Animal Science, Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
Fahmy, M. H. and Bernard, C. S. 1971. Crossbreeding swine: evaluation of twenty-eight crosses of market pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 51: 645650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahmy, M. H., Holtmann, W. B. and MacIntyre, T. M. 1975. Evaluation of crossbred sows for the production of pigs for slaughter. Anim. Prod. 20: 249255.Google Scholar
Glodek, P. 1974. Specific problem of breed evaluation and crossing in pigs. Proc. Working Symp. Breed Evaluation and Crossing Experiments With Farm Animals, Zeist, Netherlands, pp. 267281.Google Scholar
Holtmann, W. B., Fahmy, M. H., MacIntyre, T. M. and Moxley, J. E. 1975. Evaluation of female reproductive performance of 28 one-way crosses produced from eight breeds of swine. Anim. Prod. 21: 199207.Google Scholar
Omtvedt, L. T., Stephens, F. D., Rule, D. R. and Sharp, W. E. 1967. Relationship between growth rate, probe backfat thickness and carcass traits in swine. Rep. Okla. agric. Exp. Stn, MP-19, pp. 2630.Google Scholar
Schlote, W., Fender, M. and Fewson, D. 1974. The Baden-Württemberg cross-breeding experiment in swine—preliminary evaluation. Proc. Working Symp. Breed Evaluation and Crossing Experiments With Farm Animals, Zeist, Netherlands, pp. 343352.Google Scholar