Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T16:27:02.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection for carcass length in Large White pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. E. Duckworth and
W. Holmes
J. E. Duckworth
Affiliation:
Wye College (University of London) Ashford, Kent
W. Holmes
Affiliation:
Wye College (University of London) Ashford, Kent
Get access

Extract

A sib selection programme for length of carcass was carried out for fivegenerations within a closed herd of Large White pigs. A generation intervalof one year was obtained.

Litter production was good throughout the project and the numbers of pigs born and reared in the final generation were 11·2 and 10·3 respectively.

Overall response to selection was predicted with reasonable success. The increase in length was associated with an increase in number of vertebrae.

Heritability for length of carcass computed from the pooled components of variance was 0·53 ± 0·12. Realized heritability was 0·5 ± 0·1. No control strain was maintained.

Correlated traits moved in the expected directions and responses were beneficial for traits such as backfat measurements and chest depth, but unfavourable for belly thickness and ham conformation. Carcass acceptability was not good initially and this deteriorated during the project. The difficulties involved in maintaining selection pressure and herd size are discussed. Abnormalities and lameness were recorded and did not increase systematically over the experiment.

It is suggested that the specific relationships between ‘conformation’, carcass value and viability require further investigation with particular reference to length of leg and length of carcass.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , November 1968, pp. 359 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1968

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Coey, W. E. 1954. The relationship between growth rate and carcass conformation in pigs. Agric. Progr. 29: 60–65.Google Scholar
Duckworth, J. E. 1965. The influence of pre-weaning nutrition on subsequent growth and development of bacon pigs. Anim, Prod. 7: 161–171.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1960. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh and London.Google Scholar
Harrington, G. and Pomeroy, R. W. 1961. The yield of cuts from Wiltshire bacon sides in relation to length and other carcass measurements. Anim. Prod. 3: 163–170.Google Scholar
Hetzer, H. O. and Harvey, W. R. 1967. Selection for fatness in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 26: 1244–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. W. B. 1957. The heritability of carcass traits in British bacon pigs. Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod.: 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. W. B. and Roberts, R. C. 1960. Carcass length in the bacon pig; its association with vertebrae numbers and prediction from radiographs of the young pig. Anim. Prod. 2: 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. W. B. and Smith, C. 1968. Development of a pig sire line by selection, with immigration. Anim. Prod. 10: 245 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Pig Industry Development Authority 1963. Litter recording—a report on two six-month periods, April-September 1962, October-March 1963.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 1966. A note on the heritability of leg weakness scores in pigs. Anim. Prod. 8: 345–348.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
Thurley, D. C., Gilbert, F. R. and Done, J. T. 1967. Congenital splay leg of piglets. Myofibrillar hypoplasia. Vet. Ree. 80: 302–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar