Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T08:28:06.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of farm and station performance testing of boars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. P. McPhee
C. P. McPhee
Affiliation:
Department of Primary Industries, Animal Research Institute, Yeerongpilly, Queensland 4105, Australia
Get access

Summary

By fitting a range of numerical values to a model, genetic responses from performance testing male pigs (boars) were examined in a population in which pig farms either conduct their own tests or send boars to a central station for testing. Where selection intensities are the same for station and farm tests the former almost always has an advantage over the latter. Factors which lead to this advantage are genetic differences between farms, genetic sampling within farms and limitations on the accuracy of performance measurement in farm tests. In a large station test response in a trait of 50% heritability is expected to be 15% greater than in tests comprising boars from 10 effective parents on farms whose average genotype contributes 5% of the total genetic variation and whose environmental variation is 25% greater than in the station. In populations with limited station testing space available, farm tests should be able to compensate for their lower efficiency by increasing selection intensities.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 1975 , pp. 243 - 248
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

Burrows, P. M. 1972. Expected selection differentials for directional selection. Biometrics 28: 1091–1100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clausen, H. and Gerwig, C. 1958. Pig breeding, Recording and Progeny Testing in European Countries. Food and Agric. Org., Rome, 30pp.Google Scholar
Cook, G. L. and Pease, A. H. R. 1966. The effects of moving averages. Combined testing. Recommendations by the Statistics Section for the Selection Index. (Mimeograph). DA 188. Pig Industry Development Authority, London. Append. 1: 1–2.Google Scholar
Jonsson, P. 1971. Population parameter estimates of the Danish Landrace pig. Ada Agric. scand. 21: 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. W. B. 1970. Organisation and practice of pig improvement in European countries. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 38: 523–536.Google Scholar
McPhee, C. P. 1973. The contribution of central boar performance testing to genetic improvement of the Queensland pig population. Aust. J. exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 13: 643–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPhee, C. P. 1974. An analysis of variation in performance traits of Large White and Landrace boars tested in the Queensland pig testing station. Aust. J. exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 14: 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar