Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T15:29:29.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of crossbred sows for the production of pigs for slaughter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

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

Summary

Data from 726 male and 765 female pigs (364 litters) from 28 threebreed crosses obtained from mating Poland China boars to gilts and sows from different two-breed-crosses were analysed. The 28 two-breed-crosses were obtained from mating Yorkshire (Y), Landrace (Ld), Lacombe (Lc), Hampshire (H), Duroc (D), Berkshire (B) and Large Black (LB) sows to Ld, Lc, H, D, B, LB and Tamworth (T) boars in an incomplete diallel mating design. The traits studied were age at slaughter (72 kg carcass weight), carcass backfat measurement and an index combining both traits.

The youngest pigs to reach slaughter weight were those from LB x D sows (191·3 days) while the oldest were from T x D sows (211·6 days). The pigs with the least depth of backfat were those involving the Hampshire breed (mean 7·28 cm) while those involving the Large Black had the thickest backfat (mean 7·81 cm). In descending order, the five highest ranking crosses based on the index were those from H x Ld, H x Lc, LB x D, Lc x Ld and H x Y sows.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 1975 , pp. 249 - 255
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

Bichard, M. and Smith, W. C. 1972. Crossbreeding and genetic improvement. In Pig Production (ed. Cole, D. J. A.). Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Fahmy, M. H. and Bernard, C. S. 1971. Crossbreeding swine: Evaluation of twentyeight crosses of market pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 51: 645–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahmy, M. H., Bernard, C. S. and Holtmann, W. B. 1971. Crossbreeding swine: reproductive performance of seven breeds of sows bred to produce crossbred progeny. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 51: 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1960. Least squares analysis of data with unequal subclass numbers. United States Dept of Agriculture, ARS-20–8. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Holtmann, W. B., Fahmy, M. H., Baker, R. D., MacIntyre, T. M. and Barr, G. R. 1971. Reproductive performance of crossbred sows produced from one-way crosses among eight different breeds. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 51: 823 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kramer, Y. C. 1957. Extension of multiple range tests to group correlated adjusted means. Biometrics 13: 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omtvedt, I. T., Stephens, D. F., Rule, D. R. and Sharp, W. E. 1967. Relationship between growth rate, probe backfat thickness and carcass traits in swine. Okla. agric. Exp. Stn, MP. 79: 26–30.Google Scholar