Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T22:25:21.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on the effects of health environment on heterosis for growth rate in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. W. Kennedy  and
M. Quinton
B. W. Kennedy
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
M. Quinton
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
Get access

Extract

Heterosis for growth rate in pigs is usually expressed, and reviews of European and North American studies have been given by Sellier (1976) and Johnson (1981). Kennedy and Moxley (1980) observed heterosis of 0·044 to 0·067 for weight at 154 days and attributed some of the crossbred advantage to heterosis for resistance to atrophic rhinitis. Similarly, McGuirk, Bourke and Manwaring (1978) attributed some of the heterosis for growth rate in sheep to heterosis for resistance to pneumonia. Although little attention has been paid to interactions between heterosis and health environment, Barlow (1981) concluded from an extensive review of studies involving farm and laboratory animals that heterosis is environment dependent and is enhanced by increased stress. Sellier (1976) commented that it would be useful to examine the degree of heterosis with ‘specific pathogen free’ pigs raised in a healthy environment, and this study examined heterosis for days to 90 kg in Yorkshire × Landrace pigs under three different environments with respect to health conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , June 1987 , pp. 443 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1987

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

Barlow, R. 1981. Experimental evidence for interaction between heterosis and environment in animals. Animal Breeding Abstracts 49: 715–737.Google Scholar
Bennett, G. L., Tess, M. W., Dickerson, G. E. and Johnson, R. K. 1983. Simulation of heterosis effects on costs of pork production. Journal of Animal Science 56: 792–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bichard, M. and Smith, W. C. 1972. Crossbreeding and genetic improvement. In Pig Production (ed. Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 37–52. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. K. 1981. Crossbreeding in swine: experimental results. Journal of Animal Science 52: 906–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, B. W. and Moxley, J. E. 1980. Genetic factors influencing atrophic rhinitis in the pig. Animal Production 30: 277–283.Google Scholar
McGuirk, B. J., Bourke, M. E. and Manwaring, J. M. 1978. Hybrid vigour and lamb production. 2. Effects on survival and growth of first-cross lambs, and on wool and body measurements of hogget ewes. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 18: 753–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seluer, P. 1976. The basis of crossbreeding in pigs: a review. Livestock Production Science 3: 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar