Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:00:13.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic relationships of reproduction with growth and with carcass traits in British pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. A. Morris
C. A. Morris
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding Research Organisation, King's Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Summary

Data werfe analysed of litters from Large White and Landrace herds which were tested at central stations in Great Britain for growth and carcass traits. Information on reproductive performance of young females was combined with data on their relatives at central stations in order to calculate genetic relationships of reproduction with growth and with carcass traits. Progeny testing of boars for both sets of traits was the most efficient of the methods considered for this analysis.

In general, the estimated genetic correlations of reproductive performance with growth and with carcass traits were alike in sign for the two breeds, and the signs of the matrix of values were internally consistent. For example, combining data for litter sizes in the Large White breed, genetic correlations were −0·15 (food conversion ratio), 0·06 (daily gain), −0·18 (average backfat depth), −0·63 (killing-out percentage) and −0·41 (hind quarter percentage). When the growth and carcass traits were combined as total points score in a selection index, the genetic correlation between this score and reproductive performance was very small, with a range from −0·04 to 0·02. Calculations showed that inclusion of reproductive performance in the index would increase the rate of genetic improvement by only 0·55%.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 1975 , pp. 31 - 44
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

Bichard, M. 1971. Dissemination of genetic improvement through a livestock industry. Anim. Prod. 13: 401–411.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, A. G. and Lucas, I. A. M. 1968. The nutritive value of separated milk for pigs. I. A comparison of two diets containing separated milk with a standard allmeal diet. Anim. Prod. 10: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G. L. and Cuthbertson, A. 1972. The relationship between certain meat quality and performance characteristics in combined test pigs in Great Britain. Proc. Eur. Assoc. Anim. Prod,, Verona, 10 1972.Google Scholar
Cook, G. L., Smith, D. H. and Steane, D. E. 1971. The progress and penetration of the Accreditation Scheme in Britain, 1966–1970. Proc. Eur. Assoc. Anim. Prod., Versailles, Paris, 07 1971.Google Scholar
Dettmers, A. E., Rempel, W. E. and Comstock, R. E. 1965. Selection for small size in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 24: 216–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. P. and Russell, W. S. 1970. The relationship between live weight of ewe at mating and weight of newborn lamb. Anim. Prod. 12: 273–280.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1960. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh and London.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1967. Growth and fecundity in mice. In Endocrine Genetics (ed. Spickett, S. G. and Shire, J. G. M.), pp. 207–223. Cambridge Univ. Press, London and New York.Google Scholar
Gregory, P. W. 1932. The potential and actual fecundity of some breeds of rabbits. J. exp. Zool. 62: 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetzer, H. O. and Brier, G. W. 1940. Extent to which type differences among swine affect litter size. Proc. Am. Soc. Anim. Prod. 33: 135–138.Google Scholar
Hetzer, H. O. and Miller, R. H. 1970. Influence of selection for high and low fatness on reproductive performance in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 30: 481–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonsson, P. 1971. Population parameter estimates of the Danish Landrace pig. Ada Agric. Scand. 21: 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, G. 1971. [Reproductive performance of domestic dogs and its relationship to body size and weight of breeds]. III. Z. Tierziicht. Zucht Biol. 88: 316–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legault, C. 1971. [Relationship between reproductive performance and fattening and carcass characters in the pig]. Annls Ginet. Sel. Anim. 3: 153–160.Google Scholar
Leitch, I., Hytten, F. E. and Billewicz, W. Z. 1959. The maternal and neonatal weights of some Mammalia. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 133: 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moav, R. and Hill, W. G. 1966. Specialised sire and dam lines. IV. Selection within lines. Anim. Prod. 8: 375–390.Google Scholar
Morris, C. A. 1973. Genetic relationships between growth and reproduction in pigs. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Pease, A. H. R. 1965. Correlations with three week weights and age at start of test. Publication No. 36 J65, Pig Industry Development Authority. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Persson, J. and Lindhé, B. 1972. [Pig breeding in the 1960s]. Meddn Svensk Husdjursskotsel, No. 57: 53–66.Google Scholar
Pig Industry Development Authority. 1966. Combined testing. PIDA Internal Report (DA.188). Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Ridgeon, R. F. 1972. Results of pig management scheme, 1972. Agric. Econ. Unit, Univ. Cambridge, 38pp.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. 1959a. A simple method of pedigree evaluation in dairy cattle. Anim. Prod. 1:167–174.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. 1959b. The sampling variance of the genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics 15: 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. and Lerner, I. M. 1949. The heritability of all-or-none traits: viability of poultry. Genetics, Princeton 34: 395–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, A. and Rendel, J. M. 1954. The performance of heifers got by artificial insemination. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 44: 184–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. 1964. The use of specialised sire and dam lines in selection for meat production. Anim. Prod. 6:337–344.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 1965. Results of pig progeny testing in Great Britain. Anim. Prod. 7: 133–140.Google Scholar
Smith, C. and King, J. W. B. 1964. Crossbreeding and litter production in British pigs. Anim. Prod. 6: 265–271.Google Scholar
Smith, C., King, J. W. B. and Gilbert, N. 1962. Genetic parameters of British Large White bacon pigs. Anim. Prod. 4: 128–143.Google Scholar
Smith, C. and Ross, G. J. S. 1965. Genetic parameters of British Landrace bacon pigs. Anim. Prod. 7: 291–301.Google Scholar
Standal, N. 1973. Studies on breeding and selection schemes in pigs. II. Environmental factors affecting ‘on-the-farm’ testing results. Acta Agric. scand. 23: 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, G. S. 1970. Litter productivity in Large White pigs. 1. The relative importance of some sources of variation. Anim. Prod. 12: 225–233.Google Scholar
Strang, G. S. and King, J. W. B. 1970. Litter productivity in Large White pigs. 2. Heritability and repeatability estimates. Anim. Prod. 12: 235–243.Google Scholar
White, J. 1966. PIDA's Accreditation Scheme. Proc. Conf. on Breeding for Pig Improvement: Pig Industry Development Authority (now Meat and Livestock Commission). Brighton, 1966. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Wiener, G. 1967. A comparison of the body size, fleece weight and maternal performance of five breeds of sheep kept in one environment. Anim. Prod. 9: 177–195.Google Scholar
Zeller, J. H. 1940. Swine type as a factor in pork production. Proc. Am. Soc. Anim. Prod. 33:279–283.Google Scholar