Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T18:37:17.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of large White and Duroc boars as terminal sires under two different feeding regimes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

S. P. Simpson ,
A. J. Webb  and
S. Dick
S. P. Simpson
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research, Edinburgh Research Station, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
A. J. Webb
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research, Edinburgh Research Station, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
S. Dick
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research, Edinburgh Research Station, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Abstract

Large White and Duroc semen was used to form a three-breed cross from Large White x Norwegian Landrace dams. A pair of sibs from each litter was fed ad libitum and a further pair on a time-based scale at the Meat and Livestock Commission testing station at Stirling, Scotland. A total of 241 litters was tested. At the end of testing the pigs were slaughtered and standard carcass measurements were made. One side of the carcass of each of a sample of 60 pigs was fully dissected. The Duroc progeny grew faster and had better food conversion efficiency than the Large White progeny when fed ad libitum but there was no difference between the breeds when feeding was restricted. The Large White progeny produced a better trimming yield and were slightly longer. There was no significant difference in fat depths. The proportions of lean, fat and bone tissues did not differ greatly between the breeds although the Large White progeny had slightly more lean tissue and the Duroc progeny were more heavily boned and had more intermuscular fat. The Duroc terminal sires gave an economic advantage of £1·70 per pig when fed ad libitum but a loss of £0·35 when fed to a restricted scale. This was primarily due to the superior growth rate and food conversion efficiency of the Duroc progeny when fed ad libitum.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , August 1987 , pp. 111 - 116
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

Barton-Gade, P. A. and Bejerholm, C. 1985. Eating quality of pork — what the Danes have found. Pig Farming 33: 56–57.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1977. User's guide for LSML76. Mixed model least-squares maximum likelihood computer program. Ohio State University, Columbus. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Malmfors, D., Eriksson, J-A. and Lundstrom, K. 1979. Effects of including meat quality in a selection index for pigs. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 30: 405–417.Google Scholar
Quintana, F. G. and Robinson, O. W. 1983. Systems of crossbreeding in swine. 1. Estimation of genetic parameters. Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie 100: 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, J. F., Christian, L. L. and Kuhlers, D. L. 1982. in swine: genetic effects on pig growth and carcass merit. Journal of Animal Science 54: 747–756.Google Scholar
Sellier, P. 1981. A first evaluation of the Duroc. In: 13demes Journees de Recherche Porcine en France 1981, pp. 299–306. Institut Technique du Pore, Paris.Google Scholar
Sigvardsson, J. and Andersson, K. 1985. Crossbreeding experiment with Duroc as terminal sire. British Pig Breeders Round Table, Wye College.Google Scholar
Sutherland, R. A., Webb, A. J. and King, J. W. B. 1984. Evaluation of overseas pig breeds using imported semen. 1. Growth and carcass performance. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103: 561–570.Google Scholar
Webb, A. J., Carden, A. E., Smith, C. and Imlah, P. 1982. Porcine stress syndrome in pig breeding. Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Madrid, Vol. 5, pp. 588–608.Google Scholar
Webb, A. J., Southwood, O. I., Simpson, S. P. and Carden, A. E. 1985. Genetics of porcine stress syndrome. In Stress Susceptibility and Meat Quality in Pigs (ed. Lundvigsen, J. B.), pp. 9–30. Publication, European Association ofAnimal Production. No. 33.Google Scholar
Wood, J. D. 1984. Fat quality in pig meat — UK. In Fat Quality in Lean Pigs (ed. Wood, J. D.), pp. 9–14. Document No. EUR 8901EN. Commission of the European Community, Luxemburg.Google Scholar