No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Comparison of crossbred and purebred boars for progeny growth and carcass merit
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2010
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
- Copyright
- Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1978
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
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