Estimation of genetic and phenotypic parameters in a closed ...
Estimation of genetic and phenotypic parameters in a closed ...
Estimation of genetic and phenotypic parameters in a closed ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
ESTIMATION OF GENET]C AND PHENOTYPIC PARÁMETERS<br />
IN A CLOSED POPI]LATION OF SI^IINE<br />
by<br />
Fang Tsong L<strong>in</strong><br />
A Thesis<br />
SubûÉtted to<br />
The University <strong>of</strong> Manitoba<br />
<strong>in</strong> Partial Fulfillment <strong>of</strong> the Requirements<br />
for the Degree <strong>of</strong><br />
MASTER OF SCIENCE<br />
19 B0
ESTII'iATION OF GENETIC AND PHINOTYPIC PARAMETTRS<br />
TN A CLOSED POPULATION OF SW]NE<br />
D \/<br />
ut<br />
FANG TSONG LIN<br />
A the sis sLrbnlittecl to the Faculty <strong>of</strong> GradLrate stLrdies ol<br />
t¡e Urriversity ol ìrlanitoba <strong>in</strong> partial fLrlfillnlent <strong>of</strong> tlie reqttirettle'nts<br />
<strong>of</strong> the degree <strong>of</strong>-<br />
IlASTIR OF SC I ENCI<br />
o l9B0<br />
Pernrissioir has bcen grantecl to thc LliliìAIìY oF TIIE UNIVEIì-<br />
SITY Otr Ì\'IANITOBA to lcnd or sell copics ol'this the sis' to<br />
the n-ATIOI.\¡\L LIBIìAIìY Oi- CANADA to Inicr.filrÌ this<br />
tliesis ancl to lc-nd or scll copics olthc'liil]r. <strong>and</strong> UNIVERSITY<br />
N,llCROFiLltlS to pLrblish an abstract <strong>of</strong> this thesis'<br />
The aLrthor reserves other pLrblication rigltts. arld lteithe r tlie<br />
thCSis lior t'rtcnsivc ùXtriìCtS lì'r.)lll it ¡l.l¿tt,Lrc llrilttt'cl or otht.rrvisc<br />
rellrocìrrcecl rvjtiioLlt tlte autltol''s writt.,'ll ¡lertttissiort.
ACKNOI^rLEDGÐ{ENTS<br />
The author wishes to express his gratitude to Dr. R.J. Parker<br />
for hís <strong>in</strong>valuable advice <strong>and</strong> guidance dur<strong>in</strong>g the period <strong>of</strong> graduate<br />
Study <strong>and</strong> the preparation <strong>of</strong> this thesis.<br />
I am also grateful to the staff members <strong>of</strong> the Livestock Division<br />
<strong>of</strong> AgrÍculture Canada <strong>and</strong> the personnel <strong>of</strong> Canada Packers Límited,<br />
i^I<strong>in</strong>nipeg, Manitoba for provid<strong>in</strong>g assistance <strong>and</strong> facílities for carcass<br />
measurements.
11<br />
ASSTRACT<br />
Phenotypic <strong>and</strong> <strong>genetic</strong> <strong>parameters</strong> <strong>of</strong> some reproductive traits <strong>in</strong><br />
sw<strong>in</strong>e were estimated from 1 ,264 Lrtters <strong>of</strong> first<br />
parÍty }lanagra gilts<br />
farrowed between L967 anô, 1977. Means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviations for the<br />
traits <strong>of</strong> total number <strong>of</strong> pigs born, number born alive, number at<br />
wean<strong>in</strong>g, average birth weÍght <strong>and</strong> average wean<strong>in</strong>g weight were: 9.681<br />
2.22, 9.L7!2.L3, 7.68!2.L6, 1.3410.18 kg <strong>and</strong> 10.66!I.52 kg, respectively.<br />
SignÍficant dÍfferences were observed among three different farrorn'<strong>in</strong>g<br />
groups <strong>and</strong> among years <strong>in</strong> all reproductive traits.<br />
HeritabilíÈy<br />
estimates r,rere as follows: total number <strong>of</strong> pigs born, 0.0710.12;<br />
number <strong>of</strong> pigs born alive, 0.0210.12; number <strong>of</strong> pigs weaned, 0.0110.12;<br />
average birth weight, 0.36t0.11; <strong>and</strong> average wean<strong>in</strong>g weight, 0.3710.11.<br />
PhenotypÍc correlations among the three different litter<br />
size traits<br />
were highly positive <strong>and</strong> the correlation between average birth weíght<br />
<strong>and</strong> average wean<strong>in</strong>g weight was moderately posÍtive. Phenotypic correlations<br />
between litter si-ze' traits <strong>and</strong> average pig r.igfrt traits were<br />
moderately negative except for the correlaËion <strong>of</strong> nr:mber weaned r¿ith<br />
average bírth weight. Genetic correlations between total number born<br />
<strong>and</strong> average pig weight at birth <strong>and</strong> at wean<strong>in</strong>g were 0"3010.46 <strong>and</strong> 0.92!<br />
0.09, respectively. Genetic correlations betv¡een average wean<strong>in</strong>g<br />
weight <strong>and</strong> nr:mber <strong>of</strong> pigs weaned <strong>and</strong> average birth weight r,¡ere 0.5211.05<br />
<strong>and</strong> 0 .77x0.20, respectively.<br />
Phenotypic <strong>and</strong> genetÍc <strong>parameters</strong> for carcass aeasurements <strong>and</strong> age<br />
to market weight were estimated from data on 1r455 Managra pigs consist<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>of</strong> 425 barrows <strong>and</strong> 1,030 gilts over a seven year period (1971-<br />
1977). Means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard devÍations for 10 traits \^rere as follows:
iÍi<br />
carcass length,77.22!2.47 cm¡' maximum shoulder fat thíckness, 4.1710.50<br />
cmi m<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>srn mid-back fat thickriess, 2.01t0.37 cur; lo<strong>in</strong> fat thickness,<br />
3.2L!0.42 cm; total fat thickness, 9.40tL.04 cm;1o<strong>in</strong> eye area,30.171<br />
2<br />
3.70 cm-; grade <strong>in</strong>dex, 101.84t2.80; 7" lnam weight, 26.6911.62; lnam<br />
surface area, L25.25!L5.34 "*2;<br />
<strong>and</strong> age Lo market weight, 188.40115.06<br />
days. T'he differences between barrorvs <strong>and</strong> gilts.\^rere significant for<br />
all c.arcass trait.s <strong>and</strong> age to market rveight. Heritabilities<br />
estimated<br />
from sire <strong>and</strong>. dam components Treïe: carcass length, 0.62!0.08; maxímum<br />
shoulder fat, 0.39t0.07; rn<strong>in</strong>imr:m mid-back fat, 0.3310.07; lo<strong>in</strong> fat,<br />
0.24!0.07; total fat thickness,0.4510.07; lo<strong>in</strong> eye area,0.5310.07;<br />
grade <strong>in</strong>dex, 0.4910.07; % ham weight, 0.24!0.07; harn surface aÍea, 0.41t<br />
0.07; % predícted yíe1d, 0.56t0.08; <strong>and</strong> age to narket weight, 0.59t0.08.<br />
Phenotypic <strong>and</strong> genetÍc correlation coefficÍents r¡ere calculated from<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> covariance. Several <strong>genetic</strong> correlation coefficients r¿ere<br />
outside the theoretical range <strong>and</strong> the st<strong>and</strong>ard errors for most <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>genetic</strong> correlatÍon coefficients were hÌgh. Phenotypic <strong>and</strong> <strong>genetic</strong><br />
correlatíons among eleven traits were <strong>in</strong> the same direction buÈ <strong>genetic</strong><br />
correlations tended to be higher.
1v<br />
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
Page<br />
ACKNOi^ILEDGEIßNTS<br />
LIST OF TABLES<br />
LIST OF A?PENDICES<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
LITERATURE REVIEW<br />
}-ÍATERIALS AND METHODS<br />
A. Sources <strong>of</strong> Data<br />
I. Reproductíve traiËs<br />
II. Carcass measurements<br />
<strong>and</strong> age to m¡rket weight<br />
í<br />
vi<br />
vaaa<br />
I<br />
2<br />
L4<br />
I4<br />
L4<br />
T7<br />
B. Statistical Analysis 22<br />
I. Reproductive traits<br />
1. Heritabilíty estimates<br />
2. Phenotypic <strong>and</strong> <strong>genetic</strong><br />
correlations<br />
22<br />
22<br />
24<br />
II. Carcass measurements <strong>and</strong> age to market weight<br />
1. Heritability estimates<br />
2. Phenotypic <strong>and</strong> <strong>genetic</strong> correlations<br />
RESULTS AND D]SCUSSION<br />
A. Reproductive traits ...;.<br />
I. Means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard devialions<br />
II. Heritability estimates<br />
III. Phenotypic correlations<br />
IV. Genetic correlations<br />
26<br />
¿1<br />
29<br />
33<br />
33<br />
33<br />
36<br />
JÕ<br />
40
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
Page<br />
B. Carcass measurements <strong>and</strong> age to market weight<br />
I. Means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviations<br />
II. lleritability estimates -.. -.<br />
III. Phenotypic correlations<br />
fV. Genetic correlations<br />
SU}ßIARY AND CONCLUSION<br />
LITERATI]RE CITED<br />
APPENDIX<br />
40<br />
40<br />
4¿<br />
47<br />
/,o<br />
53<br />
56<br />
59
va<br />
L]ST OF TABLES<br />
Table<br />
I Sunrmary <strong>of</strong> heritability estirnates <strong>of</strong> reproductive<br />
traits<br />
Page<br />
4<br />
| $smmery <strong>of</strong> heritability estimates <strong>of</strong> carcass measuremenÈs<br />
<strong>and</strong> age to market weight traits<br />
3 Managra breed development pattern <strong>and</strong> the current<br />
farrow<strong>in</strong>g groups 15<br />
I<br />
4 Number <strong>of</strong> litters contributíng to the study per<br />
year per group<br />
5 Nr:mber <strong>of</strong> observations contributed to Lhe study<br />
per year per group<br />
6 Regression coefficients used to adjust carcass<br />
Deasurements for carcass weíght<br />
L6<br />
Z0<br />
ZL<br />
7 Analysis <strong>of</strong> variance for litter size 23<br />
B Analysís <strong>of</strong> covariance 24<br />
9 Analysis <strong>of</strong> variance 27<br />
10 Analysis <strong>of</strong> covaríance . 29<br />
11 Means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviations <strong>of</strong> reproductíve traiÈs<br />
for each farrow<strong>in</strong>g group for 10 years 34<br />
12 Means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviations <strong>of</strong> reproducËive traítsfor<br />
eaeh year 35<br />
13 Escimated heritabilitíes <strong>and</strong> their st<strong>and</strong>ard errors for<br />
each <strong>of</strong> five reproductive traits from the sire<br />
cornponent <strong>of</strong> variance<br />
L4<br />
Phenotypic <strong>and</strong> <strong>genetic</strong> correlations among reproductive<br />
traits 39<br />
37<br />
15 Means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviations <strong>of</strong> carcass measurements<br />
<strong>and</strong> age to market weight for each sex .<br />
4L<br />
16 Means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviations <strong>of</strong> carcass measurenents<br />
<strong>and</strong> age to markeÈ weight traits for each farrowíng<br />
group 43
va1<br />
LIST OF TABLES<br />
Table<br />
Page<br />
L7 Means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviations <strong>of</strong> carcass Illeasurements<br />
<strong>and</strong> age to market weight traíts for each year 44<br />
18 Heritability estim¡tes for carcass measurements <strong>and</strong><br />
age to market weight traits 46<br />
19 Phenotypic correlations among n<strong>in</strong>e carcass measurements<br />
<strong>and</strong> age to market weight traits 48<br />
20 Genetic correlations a<strong>in</strong>orlg carcess Eeasurements<br />
<strong>and</strong> age to m¡rket weighË 50
vaal,<br />
Appendix<br />
I<br />
II<br />
III<br />
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES<br />
Analysis <strong>of</strong> variance <strong>of</strong> reproductive traits . .. 60<br />
Analysís <strong>of</strong> covariance <strong>of</strong> reproductive traits ... 67<br />
Page<br />
Analysis <strong>of</strong> varíance <strong>of</strong> carcass rneasurements<br />
<strong>and</strong> age to rnarket weight 63<br />
IV<br />
v<br />
VI<br />
Analysis <strong>of</strong> covariance <strong>of</strong> carcass measurements<br />
<strong>and</strong> age to m¡¡l¡s¡ weight 64<br />
Table <strong>of</strong> differentials for carcass grade <strong>in</strong>dex 75<br />
Adjustment table for age to urarkeË weight 76
INTRODUCTION<br />
The heritabilíty<br />
<strong>of</strong> traits <strong>of</strong> economic importance is a fundamental<br />
source <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong> the theory <strong>and</strong> practice <strong>of</strong> sw<strong>in</strong>e breed<strong>in</strong>g<br />
programs.<br />
Phenotypic <strong>and</strong> <strong>genetic</strong> correlations among the traits are t\ro<br />
essential factors for construct<strong>in</strong>g selection <strong>in</strong>dexes vhen several<br />
traits are <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> the same program at the same time.<br />
In this study five reproductive traits,<br />
ten carcass measurements<br />
<strong>and</strong> age to market weight were considered ín the determÍnation <strong>of</strong><br />
heritability estimates <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> the computation <strong>of</strong> <strong>genetic</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>phenotypic</strong><br />
correlatiorrs among traits <strong>in</strong> Managra pigs. The five reproductive<br />
traits rüere total number <strong>of</strong> pigs born, nurnber <strong>of</strong> pigs born a1ive,<br />
number <strong>of</strong> pÍgs weaned, average pig birth weight <strong>and</strong> average pig wean<strong>in</strong>g<br />
weíght. The ten carcass Ðeasurements <strong>in</strong>cluded: carcass length,<br />
maxímum shoulder fat thíckness, m<strong>in</strong>imum mid-back fat thíckness, maximum<br />
lo<strong>in</strong> fat thickness, total fat thickness, lo<strong>in</strong> eye area, grade <strong>in</strong>dex,<br />
peïcent ham weight, ham surface area <strong>and</strong> percent predicted yield <strong>of</strong><br />
trínrmed cuts.
LITERATURE REVIEI^]<br />
A.<br />
Reproductive Traits<br />
I. Heritability EstÍmates<br />
It has been well recognLzed that characters closely related to<br />
reproductive fitness have low heritability<br />
estimates. Some <strong>of</strong> the heritability<br />
estimates reported by differenË workers are listed <strong>in</strong> Table 1.<br />
Heritability estimates from the literature range from -0.03 to 0.11,<br />
-0.01 to 0.28, 0.04 to 0.29, -0.04 ro 0.27 ar'ð.0.02 ro 0.46 for roral<br />
number <strong>of</strong> pigs born, number <strong>of</strong> pigs born alive, number <strong>of</strong> pigs weaned,<br />
average birth weight <strong>and</strong> average wean<strong>in</strong>g weight, respectívely.<br />
An<br />
exception to the above range has been reported by young et al. (1978)<br />
from an analysis <strong>of</strong> data rlom 2,095 gilts. These workers reported high<br />
heritabílities <strong>of</strong> 0.72!0.22 <strong>and</strong> 0.66!0.23, for total number <strong>of</strong> pigs born<br />
<strong>and</strong> ni¡nber <strong>of</strong> pigs born alive, respectively. young et al. (197S) cited<br />
that Po¡<strong>of</strong>rey et al. (L975) utilized six seasons <strong>of</strong> data <strong>in</strong>stead <strong>of</strong> eight<br />
from the sane population <strong>and</strong> reported heritabilitíes<br />
<strong>of</strong> 0.0910.08 <strong>and</strong><br />
0 .0910.09 f or these trrTo traíts .<br />
Revelle <strong>and</strong> Robison (1973) exam<strong>in</strong>ed data from 1,078 two-generation<br />
<strong>and</strong> 710'three-generation pedigrees to f<strong>in</strong>d the causes <strong>of</strong> 1ow heritabilities<br />
<strong>of</strong> reproductive traits. The gilts were dívided <strong>in</strong>to three<br />
groups as high (78"/"), nr-iddle (647") <strong>and</strong> 1ow (r9i() based on rhe firsË<br />
generation litter size. The daughterrs litter size <strong>of</strong> the 1ow group exceeded<br />
the high <strong>and</strong> the niddle groups. The results suggested a negative<br />
environmental correlation between the litter<br />
size <strong>of</strong> dam <strong>and</strong> daughter.<br />
Heritabilíty est<strong>in</strong>ates for litter size at birth were 0.13t0.06 from the<br />
regression <strong>of</strong> daughter on dam <strong>and</strong> 0.2810.26 from the regression <strong>of</strong>
gr<strong>and</strong>daughter on gr<strong>and</strong>dam. The heritability<br />
estimated from gr<strong>and</strong>daughtergr<strong>and</strong>dam<br />
regres.sion \¡las two times as large as the one estimated from<br />
daughter-dam regression. This result also <strong>in</strong>dicated the presence <strong>of</strong><br />
negative m¡ternal effec.ts on litter size, The authors suggested that the<br />
physiological maturation <strong>of</strong> the gilts from large litters<br />
was delayed<br />
by stress <strong>and</strong> competition. The explanation by the auËhors for the low<br />
heritabÍlity estiuntes <strong>of</strong> litter size were as follor¡s:<br />
1) srnall addÍtive <strong>genetic</strong> variance<br />
2) excessive environmental varíabilÍty<br />
3) negative correlations between direct <strong>genetic</strong> <strong>and</strong> maternal<br />
effects or negative genetíc correlations between component.s<br />
<strong>of</strong> the traits.<br />
Research on the Managra breed developed at the University <strong>of</strong><br />
Manitoba \,ùere reported by stockhausen <strong>and</strong> Boylan (L966), Roy et al. (1968)<br />
<strong>and</strong> Krotch (f975). Stockhauseri <strong>and</strong> Boylan (1966) reported an estimate<br />
<strong>of</strong> 0.1910.16 for the heritability <strong>of</strong> litter size. Krorch (]-915) <strong>in</strong>vestigated<br />
333 Managra litters consist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong>. 775 group A which farrowed<br />
<strong>in</strong> June-July, 1968-L973 <strong>and</strong> 158 group B litters farrowed <strong>in</strong> January-<br />
February, 1969 to r974. The herítability estimates <strong>of</strong> reproductÍve<br />
traits for each <strong>of</strong> the t\,/o groups vrere: -0.0310.02 <strong>and</strong> 0.05t0.03 for the<br />
total number <strong>of</strong> pigs born, -0.0110.02 <strong>and</strong> 0.03!0.03 for rhe number <strong>of</strong><br />
pigs born alive, 0.0410.04 <strong>and</strong> 0.0910.02 for the nirmber <strong>of</strong> pÍgs at 3 weeks<br />
<strong>of</strong> age, 0.0410.15 <strong>and</strong> 0.11t0.15 for <strong>in</strong>divÍdual birrh weighr, <strong>and</strong> -0.16+<br />
0.14 <strong>and</strong> 0.25!0.17 for <strong>in</strong>dividual 3 week weíght. Roy er al. (1968)<br />
reported that the heritability <strong>of</strong> pig birth weÍghr was 0.1010.15.
Table 1. Surnmary <strong>of</strong> herltabil-1ty estlÍìates <strong>of</strong> reproductive tralts<br />
Traltg<br />
.2 h<br />
MeEhod <strong>of</strong> estLmaElon<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> observatlons<br />
Refe¡ence<br />
Total rio. born<br />
0 . 094{ .04<br />
0.11<br />
Dam-daughter regresslon<br />
Pooled<br />
3,78L<br />
ist<br />
Urban eL a1. (1966)<br />
Fahmy <strong>and</strong> Bernard (1972)<br />
-0,03]{.02<br />
-0.05J{.03<br />
0.72+4.22<br />
Half-s1b correlaLlon<br />
Half-sfb correlaElon<br />
175<br />
158<br />
2,095<br />
Krotch (1975)<br />
Young et a1. (1978)<br />
No. born al-1ve<br />
0.03r{.07<br />
Dam-daughter regresslon<br />
1,959<br />
Boyl.an et al. (1961)<br />
0.20-rc.15<br />
0.59{{. 29<br />
Dam-daugh ter regresslon<br />
Half-stb correlatlon<br />
304<br />
304<br />
Stockhausen <strong>and</strong> Boylan (1966)<br />
0.08+0.04<br />
0.07r{).02<br />
0.09<br />
0.13r{.06<br />
0.2814.26<br />
-0 .01r{.02<br />
0.03r{.03<br />
Dam-daughter regresslon<br />
Dam-daughEer regresslon<br />
Pooled<br />
Dam-daughter regressJ-on<br />
Gr<strong>and</strong>dam-gr<strong>and</strong>daughter re gress lon<br />
Half-sib correl-aE1on<br />
3,78L<br />
3B, o0o<br />
75r<br />
750<br />
539<br />
L75<br />
158<br />
Urban et al. (1966)<br />
Strang <strong>and</strong> Ktng (1970)<br />
Fahmy <strong>and</strong> Bernard (1972)<br />
Revelle <strong>and</strong> Robtson (1973)<br />
Krotch (1975)<br />
0 .7 2+4 .22<br />
Half-sib correlaÈ1on<br />
2,095<br />
Young et al. (1978)<br />
No. pigs weaned<br />
0.13r{ .05<br />
0.09-rc.03<br />
0. 15<br />
Dam-daughLer regresslon<br />
Dam-daughter regresslon<br />
Pooled<br />
t 701<br />
38,000<br />
75r<br />
Urban et a1, (1966)<br />
Strang ancl Klng (1970)<br />
Fahmy antl Bernard (1972)<br />
0.04]{ .04<br />
0 .09r{.02<br />
0.29+4.25<br />
Half-slb correlatlon<br />
Half-slb correlatlon<br />
t75<br />
158<br />
2,O95<br />
Krotch (1975)<br />
Young et a1. (1978)<br />
. , Contlnrrecl
Table 1 (Contlnued)<br />
Tralcs<br />
a<br />
n<br />
Method <strong>of</strong> estlr¡ation<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> observatl-ons<br />
Reference<br />
Plg blrth LrelghL<br />
0.0il{.35<br />
0.2714.06<br />
0.17<br />
0.0410.04<br />
-0 . 04{{ .04<br />
0.001{.03<br />
0.16J{.16<br />
0.10+0. 15<br />
Half-s1b correlaElon<br />
Regresslon <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fsprlng on mid-parent<br />
Pooled from above Er,¡o esÈfwrtlons<br />
Regresslon <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fsprlng on slre<br />
Regresslon <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fsprlng on dam<br />
Regreeslon <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fsprlng on n1d-parent<br />
Half-efb correlaElon<br />
Half-sib correlatfon<br />
6,846<br />
3,760<br />
2,095<br />
r,246<br />
f'ahny <strong>and</strong> Bernard (1970)<br />
Edr¿ard<br />
Young<br />
Roy et<br />
<strong>and</strong> Omtvedt (1971)<br />
et al. (1978)<br />
a1. (1968)<br />
Plg weaned welght<br />
o.r4+4.26<br />
0.08r{.04<br />
0.1r<br />
0.08-m.04<br />
0.02{{) .04<br />
0. o5i{.03<br />
0.46{{.19<br />
0.18+0.15<br />
Half-s1b correlaclon<br />
Regreselon <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fsprlng on mld-parenE<br />
Pooled from above Ëwo esÈlmaE.1ons<br />
Regresslon <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fspr<strong>in</strong>g on sire<br />
Regressfon <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fsprlng on dam<br />
Regresslon <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fspr<strong>in</strong>g on mid-parenE<br />
Regresslon <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fsprlng on dam<br />
Half-sfb correlatlon<br />
6,846<br />
2,956<br />
38,000<br />
2,O95<br />
Fahmy <strong>and</strong> Bernard (1970)<br />
Edward <strong>and</strong> Omtvedt (1971)<br />
SErang <strong>and</strong> Klng (1970)<br />
Young et a1, (1978)
Heritability estipates <strong>of</strong> si¡<strong>in</strong>e reproductive traits are generally<br />
1ow <strong>and</strong> ínconsistent. The explanation for the <strong>in</strong>consistency may be due<br />
to Ëhe sampl<strong>in</strong>g eïror, the statístical method for estimation <strong>and</strong> the<br />
population studíed.<br />
II.<br />
Correlations among reproductíve traits<br />
Strang <strong>and</strong> K<strong>in</strong>g (L970) reported favourable positive <strong>phenotypic</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>genetic</strong> correlations betr¿een litter size <strong>and</strong> litter weÍght, with the<br />
exception <strong>of</strong> a negative correlation betr¿een litter sLze <strong>and</strong> the average<br />
pig weight at wean<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Edwards<strong>and</strong> Omtvedt (197f) reported high positive <strong>phenotypic</strong> correlations<br />
among litter síze traits. Fahmy <strong>and</strong> Bernard (L972) found that<br />
litter size (total <strong>and</strong> alive) at birth <strong>and</strong> at r¡ean<strong>in</strong>g r,ùere posítively<br />
<strong>phenotypic</strong>ally correlated with litter weight but were negatively correlated<br />
with <strong>in</strong>dividual pig weight at birth <strong>and</strong> aË wean<strong>in</strong>g. The authors<br />
expla<strong>in</strong>ed when the litter size <strong>in</strong>creases, litter weight also <strong>in</strong>creases<br />
while mean índivídual weÍght decreases due to the competition for the<br />
nutrient supply from the dau. They also reported that a highly positÍve<br />
phenotypíc correlation coefficients existed among three litter size<br />
traits <strong>and</strong> the <strong>in</strong>dividual birth weight was moderately positively correlated<br />
with <strong>in</strong>dividual wean<strong>in</strong>g weight.<br />
Baik et al. (L974) estimated <strong>phenotypic</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>genetic</strong> correlatíons<br />
among traiLs <strong>of</strong> litter size <strong>and</strong> litter weight from data <strong>of</strong>. 6L4 L<strong>and</strong>race<br />
litters over a three year period. The <strong>phenotypic</strong> correlation between<br />
the number <strong>of</strong> pigs born alive <strong>and</strong> the total litter weighË aË birth was<br />
0.812. The total number <strong>of</strong> pigs born was highly positively correlated
7<br />
r^/ith the number <strong>of</strong> pigs born alive <strong>and</strong> the litter weíght at birth. The<br />
<strong>genetic</strong> correlation betr¿een number <strong>of</strong> pigs born alive <strong>and</strong> 1ítter weight<br />
at birth was also hígh1y positive.<br />
Young eË al. (1978) anaryzeð. data from 2,095 girts <strong>and</strong> reporred<br />
<strong>phenotypic</strong> correlations between litter size <strong>and</strong> total litter weight at<br />
birth <strong>and</strong> at 42 days to be high <strong>and</strong> positive.<br />
In <strong>genetic</strong> correlations,<br />
pig birth weight was positively correlated with total number born (O .37),<br />
number born alive (0.35) <strong>and</strong> nuuber rueaned (0,04).<br />
The <strong>genetic</strong> correlations<br />
between pig wean<strong>in</strong>g weight <strong>and</strong> lítter<br />
size at birth (total<br />
number born <strong>and</strong> number born alive) were negligible, while a moderately<br />
negative correlation Ítas found between pig wean<strong>in</strong>g weight <strong>and</strong> number<br />
weaned.<br />
B. Carcass measurernents <strong>and</strong> age to ma¡]¡s¡ weight<br />
I. HerÍtabílity estimates<br />
The suntmary <strong>of</strong> heritability<br />
estímates <strong>of</strong> carcass measurements <strong>and</strong>.<br />
age to markeË weight reported frorn different researchers is presented <strong>in</strong><br />
Table 2. rt is clear that the majority <strong>of</strong> sw<strong>in</strong>e carcass traits are<br />
moderately or highly heritable. HerítabilÍty <strong>of</strong> carcass length reported<br />
<strong>in</strong> the lÍterature ranged froro 0.46 to 0.87 <strong>and</strong> averaged 0.63. Backfat<br />
thickness <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>divídual shoulder, rnÍd-back <strong>and</strong> lo<strong>in</strong> fat thickness<br />
measurement, <strong>and</strong> the mean frorn ,two or three fat thickness measurements,<br />
ranged from a 1ow <strong>of</strong> 0.25 to a high <strong>of</strong> 0.74 <strong>and</strong> averaged 0.50. Lo<strong>in</strong> eye<br />
area ranged from 0.35 to 0.70 <strong>and</strong> averaged at 0.50. Dress<strong>in</strong>g percentage<br />
was moderately heritable <strong>and</strong> ranged from 0.26 to 0.40 with an average <strong>of</strong><br />
0.32. HeritabÍlity <strong>of</strong> age to market weight (approx. 90 kg) \^¡as reported
Table 2. Summary <strong>of</strong> herltabllity<br />
estlmates <strong>of</strong> carcass measurements <strong>and</strong> age to rnarket weight traits<br />
Tralts<br />
h2<br />
Mechod <strong>of</strong> estimatlon<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> observatlons<br />
Refe¡ence<br />
Carcass length 0.52<br />
0.78r{.10<br />
0.87<br />
0 .50+0 . 16<br />
0.464n.04<br />
0.64<br />
Pooled from paternal, maternalhalf-slb<br />
<strong>and</strong> fu11-slb correlaLLon<br />
Paternal half-slb correlatlon<br />
il il tr il<br />
ttililtt<br />
tr tr It tt<br />
Pooled fr<strong>of</strong>l paternal- half-sib<br />
correlatlon <strong>and</strong> parent-<strong>of</strong>fspr<strong>in</strong>g regressfon<br />
53r<br />
1,936<br />
2,296<br />
7,275<br />
44,969<br />
2,031<br />
Enfleld <strong>and</strong> llhatley (1.961)<br />
Smlth et a1. (1962)<br />
SmlLh <strong>and</strong> Ross (1965)<br />
Roy et al. (1968)<br />
Flock (1970)<br />
Fahmy <strong>and</strong> Bernard (f970)<br />
Backfat thlckness<br />
. Mean<br />
Shoulder<br />
Mid-back<br />
Loln<br />
Mean<br />
Shoulder<br />
Rtb<br />
L<strong>of</strong>n<br />
Mean<br />
Mean<br />
Mean<br />
0.63<br />
0,62r{.10<br />
o . 73-rc.10<br />
0.71+0.10<br />
0.74<br />
0.26r{.11<br />
0.43+O.13<br />
0.zsfl.L2<br />
0.35r{.12<br />
0.69-rc.17<br />
0.s3<br />
Pooled from paternal, maternal halfslb<br />
<strong>and</strong> fu11-s1b correlatlon<br />
Paternal half-slb correlatlon<br />
tr[[<br />
llItil<br />
ll il tt<br />
il[il<br />
lrltil<br />
ll il il<br />
llrfil<br />
531<br />
7,936<br />
2,296<br />
1 ,191<br />
585<br />
650<br />
Enf íel.d <strong>and</strong> h¡hatley (1961.)<br />
Smlrh et al. (1962)<br />
Smlth <strong>and</strong> Ross (1965)<br />
Roy et al. (1968)<br />
Jensen et al. (1967)<br />
Arganosa et al. (1969)<br />
. . Contlnuetl
Table 2 (Contlnued)<br />
TraÍtg<br />
h2<br />
Method <strong>of</strong> estlMtlon<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> observaËlons<br />
Reference<br />
Mean<br />
Mean<br />
Mean<br />
Mean<br />
Mean<br />
0 . 46J{ .05<br />
0.67<br />
0.25<br />
0.30+0.07<br />
0.35r{.12<br />
Paternal half-elb correlatlon<br />
Pooled frorn paternal half-s1b correlaÈ1on<br />
<strong>and</strong> parenË-<strong>of</strong>feprfng regreselon<br />
PaEernal half-e1b correlatLon<br />
tt il tt I<br />
Irtilil<br />
44,969<br />
2,03L<br />
4,639<br />
5,952<br />
L,L94<br />
Ilock (1970)<br />
Fahmy <strong>and</strong> Bernard (1970<br />
glere <strong>and</strong> Ihonson (1972)<br />
Swlger ec al. (1979)<br />
Roy eE al. (1968)<br />
Loln eye area<br />
0.44<br />
0 . 35r{ .09<br />
0.t+9<br />
0.56+4.22<br />
0.47<br />
0 . 45rr0 .04<br />
0.48<br />
0.70<br />
0.56r{).06<br />
Pooled from paternal, maternal half-elb<br />
<strong>and</strong> full-elb correlatlon<br />
Paternal half-efb correlaEion<br />
trilItU<br />
trÙil[<br />
tr il [ il<br />
ilililil<br />
Pooled from paternal half-s1b correlatl-on<br />
<strong>and</strong> parent-<strong>of</strong>fsprlng regresslon<br />
Paternal half-e1b correlatlon<br />
ll I tt I<br />
531<br />
1,936<br />
2,296<br />
528<br />
650<br />
44,969<br />
2,O31<br />
4,639<br />
5,952<br />
Enffeld <strong>and</strong> Whatley (1961)<br />
Smleh et a1. (1962)<br />
Smfth <strong>and</strong> Roee (1965)<br />
Roy et al. (1968)<br />
Arganoea et al. (1969)<br />
Flock (1970)<br />
Fabmy <strong>and</strong> Bernard (1970)<br />
Slers <strong>and</strong> Thomson (1972)<br />
Swiger et a1. (1979)<br />
. Contfnued
l.abLe 2 (Contlnued)<br />
Tralts<br />
.2 h<br />
Method <strong>of</strong> estimatlon<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> observatlons<br />
Reference<br />
Dreselng out %<br />
0.40r-0.09<br />
o.26<br />
0.30-Ð.07<br />
Paternal- half-slb correlatl-on<br />
rr rr ll<br />
ll<br />
,<br />
il[Itl<br />
1,936<br />
2,296<br />
5,952<br />
smlth et a1. (1962)<br />
Smlth <strong>and</strong> Ross (1965)<br />
Svfger et al. (1979)<br />
Age to markeE welght<br />
0.40{{).07<br />
0.31J{.12<br />
illlllll<br />
Regresslon <strong>of</strong> rnld-parent <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong>fsprlng<br />
5,952<br />
r,244<br />
Swlger ec a1. (1979)<br />
Edwards <strong>and</strong> Omtvedt (1971)<br />
F<br />
O
11<br />
as 0.31 <strong>and</strong> 0.40 by Edwards<strong>and</strong> Omtvedt (I97L) <strong>and</strong> Srviger et al. (L979),<br />
respectivery. Research on the }{anagra conducted by Roy et al. (1968)<br />
reported herítabilíty estimates <strong>of</strong> 0.501-0.16, 0.35+0 .L2 <strong>and</strong> 0.5610 .22 for<br />
carcass length, carcass backfat <strong>and</strong> lo<strong>in</strong> eye area, respectively.<br />
II.<br />
Correlations among traits<br />
Snith et al. (L962) estimated heritabÍlities<br />
<strong>and</strong> correlatíons among<br />
35 carcass measurements <strong>and</strong> scores from record,s <strong>of</strong> L936 British Llhite<br />
bacon pigs. The authors found that <strong>phenotypic</strong> <strong>and</strong> genetíc correlations<br />
behave s<strong>in</strong>ilarly. The <strong>genetic</strong> correlatíons are <strong>of</strong> the same sign as<br />
<strong>phenotypic</strong> correlations <strong>in</strong> most cases, whí1e the absolute values <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>genetic</strong> correlations rÀ7ere higher than <strong>phenotypic</strong> correlations.<br />
There<br />
were high correlations among traits from one particular characteristic<br />
<strong>of</strong> the pÍg such as shoulder fat thickness <strong>and</strong> mid-back fat thickness.<br />
The dress<strong>in</strong>g-ouË percentage shor,¡ed positive correlations with backfat<br />
thickness <strong>and</strong> eye muscle area.<br />
Strith <strong>and</strong> Ross (1965) estimated heritabilitíes <strong>and</strong> correlations<br />
among 26 performance <strong>and</strong> carcass traits from data <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g 21296 British<br />
L<strong>and</strong>race pigs. The <strong>genetic</strong> parameter estimates r^7ere quite similar to the<br />
f igures reported by S<strong>in</strong>ith et al . (L962) on Large ltlhíte pigs.<br />
Jensen et al. (L967) found that average backfat thickness rùas not<br />
correlated phenoÈypically or <strong>genetic</strong>ally i^rith lo<strong>in</strong> eye area, rvhile the<br />
percent lean cuts was highly positively correlated r¿ith average backfat<br />
thíckness <strong>and</strong> was moderately negatively correlated with lo<strong>in</strong> eye area.<br />
Arganosa et al. (1969) estimated the <strong>genetic</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>phenotypic</strong> correlaËions<br />
among 13 carcass traits from 650 pigs <strong>and</strong> showed that selection
T2<br />
for less backfat thickness would <strong>in</strong>crease percent lean cuts with an<br />
<strong>in</strong>significant effect on lo<strong>in</strong> eye area. Selection for larger lo<strong>in</strong> eye<br />
area wíl1 <strong>in</strong>crease lean cut yield.<br />
Flock (1970) studied <strong>genetic</strong> correlations among traits on 44,969<br />
German L<strong>and</strong>race pigs <strong>and</strong> reported that carcass length was moderately<br />
negatively correlated with backfat thickness <strong>and</strong> had a low negative<br />
correlation with lo<strong>in</strong> eye area. The correlation betv¡een backfat thíckness<br />
<strong>and</strong> lo<strong>in</strong> eye area was moderately negative.<br />
Siers <strong>and</strong> Thomsor. (L972) est<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>genetic</strong> eorrelations among carcass<br />
traits from records <strong>of</strong> 3,439 purebred pigs. The result <strong>in</strong>dicated<br />
that select<strong>in</strong>g for less backfat thickness will <strong>in</strong>crease lo<strong>in</strong> eye <strong>and</strong> ham<br />
<strong>and</strong> lo<strong>in</strong> percenL <strong>and</strong> select<strong>in</strong>g for larger lo<strong>in</strong> eye area will <strong>in</strong>crease ham<br />
<strong>and</strong> lo<strong>in</strong> percent effectively.<br />
Enfield <strong>and</strong> Ltrhatley (1961) reported that <strong>phenotypic</strong> correlations<br />
anong carcass length, backfat thiekness <strong>and</strong> lo<strong>in</strong> eye area were sm:l1 <strong>in</strong><br />
absolute value with the largest correlation coefficient <strong>of</strong> -.36 be<strong>in</strong>g<br />
betvreen backfat thic.kness <strong>and</strong> carcass length <strong>and</strong> -.27 between backfat<br />
thickness <strong>and</strong> lo<strong>in</strong> eye area. The <strong>genetic</strong> correlaËions among these three<br />
traits were al1 negative <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>sÍgnificant.<br />
Fahmy <strong>and</strong> Bernard (1970) reported favorable relationships between<br />
carcass length, backfat thíckness <strong>and</strong> lo<strong>in</strong> eye area.<br />
Swíger et al. (l-979) found that lean cut percent had a high negative<br />
<strong>genetic</strong> correlation with backfat thickness (-.gO) <strong>and</strong> a high posÍtive<br />
correlation with lo<strong>in</strong> eye area (.83). Backfat thickness was moderately<br />
negatively correlated r¿ith lo<strong>in</strong> eye area both <strong>phenotypic</strong>ally <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>genetic</strong>ally (-;34). The <strong>phenotypic</strong> correlation between lean cufupercent
13<br />
<strong>and</strong> backfat thickness r^7as negative (-.33) <strong>and</strong> the relationship between<br />
lean cutspercent I^Iíth lo<strong>in</strong> eye area was positive (.39).<br />
Age to 90.7 kg<br />
live weight v¡as posirively correlated wíth lean cut percent <strong>and</strong> lo<strong>in</strong> eye<br />
area both <strong>genetic</strong>ally <strong>and</strong> <strong>phenotypic</strong>ally.<br />
A negative correlation<br />
(not sÍgnificant) was found between backfat thickness <strong>and</strong> age to 90 -7<br />
kg live weight.<br />
Roy et al . (1968) reported that lo<strong>in</strong> eye aTea \,/as negatively correlated<br />
with backfat thickness both <strong>phenotypic</strong>ally <strong>and</strong> <strong>genetic</strong>ally<br />
(rO -.16, tG = -.27). Carcass length was positively correlated i,¡íth<br />
lo<strong>in</strong> eye (r = O.O2, Tn = 0.42) <strong>and</strong> r¿as negatívely correlated wíth back-<br />
-P-('<br />
faË thickness (tn -.11, ra =-.19).
L4<br />
MATERIALS AND ìGTHODS<br />
A.<br />
Sources <strong>of</strong> Data<br />
I. Reproductive traits<br />
The data for 1ítter sLze were obtaíned from the records <strong>of</strong> the<br />
uníversity <strong>of</strong> Manitoba sw<strong>in</strong>e breed<strong>in</strong>g project over the períod <strong>of</strong> years<br />
1967 to L977 at the Glenlea Research Station. First parity gilts <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Managra breed r^iere <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> this study. Managra r¡ere developed<br />
from a gene pool consist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> about 457á Swedish L<strong>and</strong>race , 2O7. I^Iessex<br />
Saddleback, 15% I,Ielsh ar'ð 707. M<strong>in</strong>nesota //l-Berkshire-Yorkshire-Tarff^rorth.<br />
Table 3 illustrates<br />
the pattern <strong>of</strong> development <strong>of</strong> the Managra <strong>and</strong> the<br />
current farrow<strong>in</strong>g groups (Parker, f977).<br />
Parents <strong>of</strong> each generation consisted <strong>of</strong> 20 to 30 boars <strong>and</strong> 90 to<br />
120 gilts. Selection <strong>of</strong> parents based on backfat thickness as measured<br />
by adjusted live ultrasonic probe, adjr,rsted age to 90 kg live weight <strong>and</strong><br />
physical soundness. There \¡ras no l<strong>in</strong>e cross<strong>in</strong>g among the groups <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>breedíng<br />
was rulnimized each generation. LitËers from which fewer than<br />
3 pigs \47ere weaned were not <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the study. The number <strong>of</strong> liËters<br />
which contributed to this study from the diffeïent groups <strong>in</strong> the different<br />
years are lísted ín Table 4. Total number <strong>of</strong> pigs born, total<br />
number <strong>of</strong> pigs born alive, total number <strong>of</strong> pÍgs weaned, average bÍrth<br />
weight <strong>and</strong> average wean<strong>in</strong>g weight were the five reproductive traits<br />
exam<strong>in</strong>ed. Average birth weight <strong>and</strong> average wean<strong>in</strong>g r^reight were adjusted<br />
for number born alive <strong>and</strong> number weaned, respectlvely.<br />
The adjustments<br />
were used only rvhen calculat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>phenotypic</strong> means. The equation for<br />
adjustmenË (Huntsberger, L977) was:
Table 3. Managra breed development patt.ern <strong>and</strong> the current farrow<strong>in</strong>g groups<br />
L<strong>in</strong>e 1<br />
Swedish L<strong>and</strong>rac<br />
2aro.rp B f arrows each year <strong>in</strong> Jan.-Febu<br />
I{essex<br />
I'Ie1sh<br />
45% Sw. L<strong>and</strong>.<br />
Mínn.<br />
20% I{essex<br />
Berkshire<br />
157" Welsh<br />
L<strong>in</strong>e 3<br />
Yorkshi r<br />
20% M.BuYnTn<br />
Tamrn¡ort<br />
L957<br />
19s 9<br />
L967<br />
Gene Poollctorrp<br />
A farrows each year <strong>in</strong> May-June.<br />
Manaqra<br />
Managra<br />
group<br />
3crorrp C farrows each year ín Sept..-octo<br />
Generation <strong>in</strong>terval ís one year <strong>in</strong> each group.<br />
F<br />
(Jr
L6<br />
Table 4.<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> litters<br />
year per grouP<br />
contribut<strong>in</strong>g to the study per<br />
Year<br />
Group A<br />
Group B<br />
Group C<br />
r968<br />
27<br />
35<br />
9<br />
l-969<br />
34<br />
37<br />
26<br />
L97 0<br />
40<br />
39<br />
32<br />
L97L<br />
46<br />
35<br />
35<br />
L97 2<br />
47<br />
37<br />
49<br />
r973<br />
35<br />
58<br />
39<br />
197 4<br />
32<br />
60<br />
27<br />
L97 5<br />
39<br />
4L<br />
31<br />
L97 6<br />
40<br />
53<br />
9L<br />
L977<br />
47<br />
76<br />
67<br />
Total 387 47L 406
L7<br />
Adjusted Y, = Y. - b (Xt-X")<br />
where Y- = average birth weight or average wean<strong>in</strong>g weight<br />
t_<br />
X. = total number born alive or total number weaned<br />
t<br />
i. = reao <strong>of</strong> total nurnber born alive = 9.148<br />
or mean <strong>of</strong> total number weaned = 7.656<br />
b = regressíon coeffi_cient<br />
O.OZLI for average birth weight v¡ith number born alive<br />
- 0.O462 for average wean<strong>in</strong>g weight with nurnber ¡¡eaned<br />
Iï. Carcass measurements <strong>and</strong> age to market weight<br />
The data used for analysis <strong>of</strong> carcass measuïements <strong>and</strong> age to<br />
merket weight were also collected from the same sw<strong>in</strong>e breed<strong>in</strong>g project.<br />
A total <strong>of</strong> 1,455 Managra consist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> 425 barrows <strong>and</strong> 1,030 gilts which<br />
farrowed dur<strong>in</strong>g the period 1,97l- xo 1977 were <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> thís study. The<br />
number <strong>of</strong> pigs contríbut<strong>in</strong>g to the study are listed <strong>in</strong> Table 5.<br />
The gilts that ranked at the bottom half <strong>of</strong> the whole population<br />
<strong>in</strong> Record <strong>of</strong> Performance (ROP) <strong>in</strong>dex <strong>and</strong> all the barror\rs \¡/ere marketed<br />
when they reached abouË 90 kg live weight. All pigs were killed at the<br />
1<br />
same abbatoir*.<br />
The carcasses I^/ere reta<strong>in</strong>ed for 24 hours before carcass<br />
measurements were taken. Carcass traits measured <strong>and</strong> the procedures<br />
used for measurement \,rere as follows:<br />
1) Carcass i^Ieight (one side)<br />
The carcass rías accurately split <strong>in</strong>t.o halves <strong>and</strong> the head<br />
<strong>and</strong> jowls removed. The leaf lard, kidney <strong>and</strong> tail were<br />
also excluded from the carcass weight.<br />
1 Canada Packers Limited, I{<strong>in</strong>nipeg, Manítoba.
1B<br />
2) Carcass Length<br />
Carcass length r,ras Ðeasured as the distance between the<br />
Íore-edge <strong>of</strong> the first<br />
rib <strong>and</strong> the fore-edge <strong>of</strong> the aitch<br />
bone section on the cold horizontal carcass.<br />
3) Maxímum Shoulder Fat Ttríckness<br />
Measured <strong>in</strong> nrm at the po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>of</strong> maximum thickness over<br />
the shoulder.<br />
4) Il<strong>in</strong>imurn Mid-back Fat Thickness<br />
Measured i¡ rrrm at the po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>ímum thickness over Lhe<br />
back.<br />
5) Maximuro Lo<strong>in</strong> Fat Thickness<br />
Measured <strong>in</strong> nrm at the po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>of</strong> maxjrnum thickness over<br />
the lumbar region.<br />
6) Total Fat Thickness<br />
Total fat thíckness measurements from shoulder, nid-back<br />
<strong>and</strong> lo<strong>in</strong> aree-, i.e. sum <strong>of</strong> measurement.s 3, 4 <strong>and</strong> 5.<br />
7) Lo<strong>in</strong> Eye Area<br />
The logissimus muscle was sectioned beÈween the 7Ëh<br />
<strong>and</strong> BËh vertebrae <strong>and</strong> its area measured us<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
planÍmeter.<br />
B) Grade Index<br />
Carcass grade <strong>in</strong>dex Lras accord<strong>in</strong>g to the Table <strong>of</strong> Differentials<br />
from Canadian Hog Carcass Grad<strong>in</strong>g/Settlement System provided<br />
by the canadian Pork council.<br />
The Table <strong>of</strong> Differentials<br />
is shown <strong>in</strong> Appendix V.
19<br />
9) 'PercenË Ham I{eight<br />
The proportion <strong>of</strong> ham <strong>in</strong> total iøeight <strong>of</strong> the side.<br />
The ham is detached at a po<strong>in</strong>t 5 cm ahead <strong>of</strong> rhe foreedge<br />
<strong>of</strong> the aitch bone section <strong>and</strong> at right angles to the<br />
1ength.l<strong>in</strong>e.<br />
10) Harn Surface A.rea<br />
Lean area over the ham measured <strong>in</strong> .*2 .rrd traced by<br />
a planiueter.<br />
f1) Percent Predícted Yield <strong>of</strong> Trirrmed Cuts<br />
The formula used for this calculation is:<br />
y = 51.68 - (I.273x, - 0.161x, - 0.485x, - 0.B27xO)<br />
wherei y = predicted yield (Z)<br />
xl = total backfat thickness <strong>in</strong> rr¡m<br />
x, = lo<strong>in</strong> area ín sq. cm<br />
*3=%hamweight<br />
x, : ham surface area ín sq. cm<br />
4'<br />
All factors are corrected for sex <strong>and</strong> carcass weight.<br />
L2) Aee to MarkeË trrleight<br />
Nurnber <strong>of</strong> days to market weight was adjusted to a 90 kg<br />
liveweight basÍs followi-ng the Canadian ROP home test<br />
program procedures. The adjusÈrnenË factors are shovm <strong>in</strong><br />
Appendix VI.<br />
A-ll <strong>of</strong> the above measurements except grade <strong>in</strong>dex, percent predicted<br />
yield <strong>and</strong> age to market weight were adjusted for carcass weíSht
20<br />
Table 5.<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> observations contríbuted<br />
Per year Per group<br />
to the study<br />
Year<br />
Group A<br />
Group B<br />
Group C<br />
L97T<br />
56<br />
L57<br />
B5<br />
L97 2<br />
92<br />
4L<br />
AL<br />
L973<br />
6L<br />
B6<br />
103<br />
797 4<br />
34<br />
138<br />
4B<br />
r97 5<br />
46<br />
B5<br />
34<br />
r97 6<br />
46<br />
69<br />
B7<br />
197 7<br />
54<br />
LO<br />
a)<br />
ToËal 389 625 447
2I<br />
Table 6,<br />
Regression coefficients used to<br />
measurements for carcass weight<br />
adjust carcass<br />
Trai t<br />
MaI e<br />
Femal e<br />
Carcass length (cm)<br />
Max. shoulder fat thickness (cn)<br />
M<strong>in</strong>. back fat. thickness (cn)<br />
Maxo lo<strong>in</strong> fat thickness (cn)<br />
Total fat thickness (crn)<br />
Lo<strong>in</strong> eye area ("*2)<br />
Ham surface area (.r2)<br />
0"031823<br />
0 "<br />
0063 40<br />
0" 004982<br />
0 007 "<br />
565<br />
0,01 9046<br />
0.013218<br />
o.o1 4248<br />
0.031564<br />
0 "<br />
008 655<br />
0.005036<br />
0. 008507<br />
0<br />
"021936<br />
0.020266<br />
0.110079
22<br />
on both sexes.<br />
Adjus ted<br />
where v. -1<br />
The formula for this adjustment (Huntsberger, 1977) was:<br />
Yi = Y. - b (x. - x"¡<br />
= carcass measureo,ent on ith ."..r""<br />
l_<br />
ã..<br />
= carcass weight <strong>of</strong> iËh carcass<br />
: mean carcass weight<br />
68.1 kg mean carcass weight for barrows<br />
68.7 kg mean carcass weight for gí1ts<br />
The regression coefficients (b) for adjustment are listed <strong>in</strong> Table 6.<br />
Carcass rDeasurements <strong>of</strong> gilts were adjusted to a barrow equivalent.<br />
The correction factors used for sex adjustlDent were as follows:<br />
carcass<br />
length -1.138 cn; shoulder fat thickness *O.244 cm; backfat thickness<br />
*0.170 crn; lo<strong>in</strong> fat thickness +{.229 cm;'total faË thickness *o.668;<br />
lo<strong>in</strong> eye area -3. 155 cra2; percent ham weight -0" 632'/"; <strong>and</strong> ham surface<br />
t<br />
area -2.961 cu", respectively<br />
B.<br />
Statistical<br />
Analysis<br />
I. Reproductive traits<br />
Heritabílity estim:tes, <strong>phenotypic</strong> correlations <strong>and</strong> <strong>genetic</strong><br />
correlations for reproductive traits r,¡ere estimated from analysis <strong>of</strong><br />
variance <strong>and</strong> covariance <strong>in</strong> a nested classification with an unequal<br />
number <strong>of</strong> lítters<br />
per sire with<strong>in</strong> years <strong>and</strong> farrow<strong>in</strong>g groups. The<br />
procedures for analysis <strong>of</strong> variance <strong>and</strong> covariance <strong>in</strong> this study fo1-<br />
lowed the procedures described by Becker (L967).<br />
l. Heritability estirnates - Heritability estimates were calculated<br />
from the sire component <strong>of</strong> variance. The form <strong>of</strong> anal-ysis <strong>of</strong>
a')<br />
variance is given <strong>in</strong> Table 7.<br />
Table 7. Analysis <strong>of</strong> variance for litter<br />
size<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> variation<br />
Among years<br />
d"f.<br />
Y-l<br />
Sum <strong>of</strong><br />
souares<br />
(SS)<br />
tt"<br />
Mean<br />
square<br />
(MS)<br />
*t,<br />
Expec ted<br />
mean<br />
souare<br />
Among groups/year<br />
G-Y<br />
SS^tr<br />
MS^<br />
\J<br />
Among sires/group/year<br />
Litters r¿ith<strong>in</strong> sires<br />
S-G<br />
n.-S<br />
'S,<br />
ssw<br />
"ts<br />
MS_.<br />
l^/<br />
"'r*""3<br />
2<br />
oüI<br />
where Y = mrmber <strong>of</strong> years<br />
G = number <strong>of</strong> farrow<strong>in</strong>g groups<br />
S = number <strong>of</strong> sires<br />
<strong>in</strong>Y vears<br />
n. = total number <strong>of</strong> litters<br />
<strong>Estimation</strong> <strong>of</strong> variance cornponents:<br />
<strong>of</strong>r = us"<br />
o!:ts,-rr"<br />
where K =<br />
*<br />
^2 Àn.<br />
n.- l-<br />
n.<br />
n.<br />
l_<br />
number <strong>of</strong> litters<br />
from the Íth sire<br />
Heritability<br />
follows:<br />
h3 =<br />
4"3<br />
22<br />
os * oIn,<br />
estimated from the síre component<br />
(Falconer,1960) as
24<br />
St<strong>and</strong>ard error<br />
(Becker, L967):<br />
<strong>of</strong> heritability<br />
was estim¡ted as follows<br />
s. E. (n3) =<br />
where S<br />
abilÍty<br />
t=<br />
2<br />
o^<br />
22<br />
os*ow<br />
2 (n. -1) (1-r) 2 (r*(x-r) .)<br />
2<br />
x2(r,.-s)(S-1)<br />
,<br />
E. (h:) is the st<strong>and</strong>ard error <strong>of</strong> the esiimate <strong>of</strong> heritt<br />
is the <strong>in</strong>tra-class correlation<br />
S <strong>and</strong> K are as previously def<strong>in</strong>ed.<br />
2. Phenotypic <strong>and</strong> <strong>genetic</strong> correlations among the traits were calculated<br />
from analysis <strong>of</strong> variance <strong>and</strong> covariance (Falconer, 1960). The<br />
form <strong>of</strong> analysis <strong>of</strong> covariance is given <strong>in</strong> Table B.<br />
Table 8. Analysis <strong>of</strong> covariance<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> variation<br />
d.f.<br />
Mean cross<br />
products (MCP)<br />
Expected mean<br />
cross pröducts<br />
Among years<br />
Y-1<br />
MCPY<br />
A-ong groups/years<br />
G-Y<br />
MCP^<br />
\J<br />
Among s ires/groups/years<br />
S_G<br />
MCPS<br />
cov" * K cov,<br />
Among litters with<strong>in</strong> sires n.-S<br />
MCPI{<br />
covw<br />
a. Phenotypic correlation between<br />
estimated as follows:<br />
traíts x <strong>and</strong><br />
(r , .)was p(>n'
25<br />
where:<br />
"ott(*y)<br />
2<br />
ã:<br />
"r(x)<br />
= total covaríance component between traits x <strong>and</strong> y<br />
total variance component for trait x<br />
222<br />
i'e' oY(*) + oc(*) * ot(*) *<br />
2<br />
on<br />
(*)<br />
2<br />
a-. . = total variance cornponent for trait y<br />
r(y)<br />
r'e' .2222<br />
oY(y) * oc(y) * os(y) + on(y)<br />
The st<strong>and</strong>ard error <strong>of</strong> the <strong>phenotypic</strong> correlation coeffícient<br />
(S.E.r ) v¡as estim¡ted as follows:<br />
p<br />
S"E.r<br />
where: n. is the total number <strong>of</strong> lítters<br />
b. GeneLic correlation betr¡een traits x <strong>and</strong> y (Tg(*y)) was<br />
estimated as follows:<br />
tc(*y)<br />
= tots(*y)<br />
22<br />
os<br />
(*) os (y)<br />
where:<br />
.ors(*y) = sire componerit <strong>of</strong> covariance between traits<br />
x<strong>and</strong>y<br />
)<br />
oõ(*) = sire component <strong>of</strong><br />
variance for the traít x<br />
2<br />
oõ(r) = sire component <strong>of</strong><br />
variance for the traít y
lf)<br />
St<strong>and</strong>ard error <strong>of</strong> the genetíc correlation (S.n.ra) was calculated<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to the method described by Robertson (1959) <strong>and</strong> is<br />
as follows:<br />
S.E.r^<br />
LJ<br />
-<br />
r- (rr,-, ) 2 s.E.-2, . s.E 2<br />
- '"'h (x) " '"_!{Ð<br />
T h-h<br />
xy<br />
r'¡here :<br />
S.E.r^(J<br />
t'=<br />
-c(>çv)<br />
= st<strong>and</strong>ard error <strong>of</strong> <strong>genetic</strong> correlation<br />
x<strong>and</strong>y<br />
coefficient<br />
<strong>genetic</strong> correlation coefficient between traits<br />
S.E.-?--. = st<strong>and</strong>ard error <strong>of</strong> heritability<br />
h (x)<br />
<strong>of</strong> traÍt x<br />
S.E."-2r--. = st<strong>and</strong>ard error <strong>of</strong> heritabílity<br />
h (Y)<br />
<strong>of</strong> trait y<br />
h2<br />
= heritability estimate <strong>of</strong> trait x<br />
2<br />
h--<br />
v<br />
heritability<br />
estimate <strong>of</strong> trait y<br />
II. Carcass measurements <strong>and</strong> age<br />
to market weight<br />
The analysis <strong>of</strong> variance <strong>and</strong> covariance described by Becker<br />
(L967) was also used for estimation <strong>of</strong> <strong>genetic</strong> <strong>parameters</strong> <strong>in</strong> carcass<br />
measurements <strong>and</strong> age to market weíght.<br />
wÍth<strong>in</strong> years <strong>and</strong> farrow<strong>in</strong>g groups <strong>in</strong> a<br />
The analysis was carried out<br />
nested classifÍcation with un-<br />
equal numbers <strong>of</strong> progeny per sire <strong>and</strong> per dam. The procedures for<br />
calculat<strong>in</strong>g heritabilities, <strong>phenotypic</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>genetic</strong> correlations were<br />
as follows:
¿/<br />
l. Heritability estimates - The form <strong>of</strong> analysis <strong>of</strong> variance is<br />
shov¡n <strong>in</strong> Table 9.<br />
Table 9. Analysis <strong>of</strong> variance<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> variation<br />
Sum <strong>of</strong> Mean Expected<br />
squares square mean<br />
d.f. (SS) _lMS) square<br />
Arnong years Y-l SSy<br />
il:ï::i:::;li:îit,,."." 3-å 33:<br />
Anong dams/sires/group/ D-S SSO<br />
years<br />
Progeny withín darns n..-D SSW<br />
*s"<br />
MS G)),<br />
*S,<br />
MSo<br />
MSt<br />
o"+rroi+rroi<br />
22<br />
'I^I*K1oD<br />
2<br />
oI^l<br />
r,¡here:<br />
Y : m¡mber <strong>of</strong> years<br />
G = number <strong>of</strong> groups <strong>in</strong> Y years<br />
S = nirmber <strong>of</strong> sires<br />
.D = number <strong>of</strong> dams<br />
n.. = total number <strong>of</strong> progeny<br />
EstimaËíon <strong>of</strong> variance components :<br />
2<br />
ol^l<br />
= MSI^,<br />
2<br />
oD<br />
= MSO - MS"<br />
\<br />
<strong>of</strong> : *s, -<br />
(MSw * *, <strong>of</strong>,><br />
\
2B<br />
vrhere:<br />
Kt=<br />
ñ_\<br />
L2 .n<br />
_1ii<br />
, ri.<br />
l_ l-<br />
D_S<br />
,,2rx2<br />
- fI .. n_-<br />
-ii<br />
ii<br />
¿ L n. n..<br />
K^=l<br />
't<br />
s-1<br />
vt<br />
<strong>in</strong>l<br />
ì{ = fl.. - l_ l_.<br />
"3 n..<br />
s-1<br />
n- : number <strong>of</strong> progeny from the ith sire<br />
l_'<br />
n-^. = number <strong>of</strong> progeny from the jth Uæ mâËed to the<br />
rJ<br />
.rh<br />
]. Sare<br />
n.. = total number <strong>of</strong> progeny<br />
Heritability<br />
estirnates \,,/ere obta<strong>in</strong>ed from sire, dam <strong>and</strong> síre * dam<br />
components (Falconer, 1960) as follows:<br />
?2<br />
n1= o 4<br />
z-. os<br />
2 . z<br />
os*oD*oln,<br />
4=<br />
2<br />
4on<br />
"3*"3*"?u
29<br />
St<strong>and</strong>ard errors (S.E.)<br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
<strong>of</strong> heritability<br />
estimates were obta<strong>in</strong>ed from the<br />
s . E. (n3)<br />
4 var<br />
2<br />
o<br />
S<br />
*oD<br />
ro?> ò<br />
*<br />
"lu<br />
2<br />
ú<br />
S<br />
s.E. (n?r*ol )<br />
.r"r ¡<strong>of</strong>r¡<br />
2)<br />
-oD*ow<br />
l)2??<br />
= 2 ,l var (or- * var (<strong>of</strong>r) + Z cov {o! <strong>of</strong>)<br />
os*oD*oI^I<br />
where.r"r {<strong>of</strong>) arra.ra= (<strong>of</strong>r) are rhe esrimares <strong>of</strong> the variance <strong>of</strong><br />
the síre <strong>and</strong> dam components ïespectively (Becker, Lg67).<br />
2. Phenotypic <strong>and</strong> <strong>genetic</strong> correlaLions. The analysis <strong>of</strong> covariance<br />
is given <strong>in</strong> Table 10.<br />
Table 10. Analysis <strong>of</strong> covariance<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> variation<br />
d.f.<br />
Mean cross<br />
product (MCP)<br />
Expected mean<br />
cross produets<br />
Among years<br />
Y-1<br />
MCPY<br />
Among groups/years<br />
G-Y<br />
MCP^G<br />
Among sires/ groups /years<br />
S-G<br />
MCPS<br />
cov"*K, cov'*K, cov,<br />
Among dams /sires /groups /yeaïs<br />
D_S<br />
MCPD<br />
cov"*K, cov'<br />
Anong progeny withîn dams<br />
n..-D<br />
MCPw<br />
covw
30<br />
Covariance components r,¡ere estimated as follows:<br />
cov" : MCP"<br />
covD = MCPD - MCPW<br />
Kt<br />
cov^=McPs-MCPD<br />
uv<br />
I\^<br />
J<br />
Phenotypic correlation between<br />
est<strong>in</strong>ated as follows:<br />
traits x <strong>and</strong> y (rn.*"¡) r""<br />
tp (*y)<br />
totr(*y)<br />
or(*) or(y)<br />
where:<br />
totr(*y)<br />
total covariance component betrween traíts x <strong>and</strong><br />
i' e' cov"(*y)+totc(*y)tuots (*y)tuotr(*y)+<br />
2<br />
ot(*) =<br />
cov__.<br />
Ir/(xy)<br />
total variance component for trait<br />
22222<br />
i' e' ov<br />
(*)*ã (*)*r- (*)tuí (*)tui(*)<br />
?<br />
oif") = total variance cornponenË for trait y<br />
i'e' o"c"l*ãry)+o;(v)+oJ (v)tuñcvl<br />
where:<br />
totY (*y)<br />
"otc(*y)<br />
covariance component <strong>of</strong> year between traits<br />
x<strong>and</strong>y<br />
covarlance coaponent <strong>of</strong> group between traits<br />
x<strong>and</strong>y
31<br />
tots (*v)<br />
toto(*y) =<br />
totw(*y) =<br />
covarr-ance conpoIlent<br />
x<strong>and</strong>y<br />
covariance cornponent<br />
covariance component<br />
x<strong>and</strong>y<br />
<strong>of</strong> síre between traits<br />
<strong>of</strong> dam between traits x <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> progeny between traits<br />
2<br />
ov(*)<br />
2<br />
or(*)<br />
= variance component <strong>of</strong> year on trait x<br />
: varíance component <strong>of</strong> group on irait x<br />
2<br />
os<br />
(*)<br />
2<br />
on(r)<br />
: variance component <strong>of</strong><br />
= variance component <strong>of</strong><br />
sire on traít x<br />
dam on trait x<br />
2<br />
ow(*)<br />
2<br />
o"(r)<br />
2<br />
or(r)<br />
2<br />
or (y)<br />
2<br />
oo<br />
(y)<br />
= variance c.omporrent <strong>of</strong> progeny on trait x<br />
= variance component <strong>of</strong> year on trait y<br />
= variance component <strong>of</strong> group on trait y<br />
= variance component <strong>of</strong> sire on trait y<br />
: variance component <strong>of</strong> dam on trait y<br />
2<br />
o"(y)<br />
= variance component <strong>of</strong> progeny on trait y<br />
The st<strong>and</strong>ard error <strong>of</strong> the <strong>phenotypic</strong> correlation coefficient. between<br />
trait.sx<strong>and</strong>y<br />
(S.<br />
E.r ) !ì7as<br />
p'<br />
estimated as follo¡¿s:<br />
S.E.r p<br />
where: n.. Ís<br />
It-, 2<br />
lP<br />
,l n..-2<br />
the total number <strong>of</strong> progeny
1A<br />
)L<br />
b. Genetic correlatÍon between<br />
estimated as:<br />
traits x <strong>and</strong> V(ra1*r¡) was<br />
'c (xv)<br />
cov^/<br />
b (xy)<br />
s (x) os (y)<br />
The st<strong>and</strong>ard error<br />
estimated by the method<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>genetic</strong> correlation coefficient was<br />
outl<strong>in</strong>ed by Becker (L967).
-f1<br />
RESULTS AND DTSCUSSION<br />
A.<br />
Reproductive Traits<br />
I. Means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviations<br />
Phenotypic means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviations for five reproductive<br />
traits <strong>in</strong> different farrow<strong>in</strong>g groups <strong>and</strong> different years are presented<br />
<strong>in</strong> Tables 11 <strong>and</strong> 12.<br />
Two-way classification<br />
<strong>of</strong> analysis <strong>of</strong> variance was applied to the<br />
data. Differences among farrow<strong>in</strong>g groups <strong>and</strong> among years r¿ere found<br />
to be significant for all traíts.<br />
Student-Newman-Keulrs (SllK)<br />
nultiple range test (Snedecor, L976) was also used to conpare the means<br />
<strong>of</strong> three different farrow<strong>in</strong>g groups <strong>and</strong> different years (Table 1l <strong>and</strong><br />
L2). Mean differences between groups A <strong>and</strong> B for f ive traits \^7ere<br />
-1.18, -L.2L, -1.08, -0.L2 anð -0.28 for total number <strong>of</strong> pigs born, total<br />
nr:mber <strong>of</strong> pigs born alive, number <strong>of</strong> pigs ¡.veaned, average birth weight<br />
<strong>and</strong> average wean<strong>in</strong>g weight, respectívely. Íhese differences were all<br />
staËistically significant (P
34<br />
Table 11. Means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviatíons <strong>of</strong> reproductive traits for<br />
each farrow-<strong>in</strong>g group for 10 years<br />
Traít<br />
n<br />
Group B<br />
47r<br />
Group C<br />
406<br />
Total no. <strong>of</strong> pigs born<br />
B "<br />
8012 .0ga<br />
g .g8!2.24b<br />
ro.r7!2.40b<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> pigs born alive<br />
B.27t2.OLa<br />
g .48t2.L6b<br />
g.o6tz.zob<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> pigs weaned<br />
6.9312.084<br />
B.OLlz.20b<br />
7 .ggtz.3Lb<br />
Ave. birth weight (kg)<br />
L.28!O.L6a<br />
1.4010. r8c<br />
1 .33t0 .19b<br />
Ave. wean<strong>in</strong>g weight (kg)<br />
10 .5811 . 604<br />
a0.86!1.72b<br />
10.5111. 414<br />
"b"Diff.rent<br />
(P
Table i-2. Means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard devlations <strong>of</strong> reproductlve trafts for each year<br />
Trair 1968<br />
n71<br />
Toraf no. born<br />
Total no. born<br />
altve<br />
9.82t2.35b"<br />
9 .28t1.13"b"<br />
L969<br />
97<br />
9.80r2.t3b"<br />
r970<br />
111<br />
9 . 3812 .014b<br />
g .20t2.13"b" B. g611.99ab<br />
7977 L972<br />
i16 133<br />
9.g3t2.28b" g.2g!2.3oab<br />
9.10t2.21-ub" 8.8112.154b<br />
Year<br />
L973 1974 r97s<br />
rn ----1Tt- lti<br />
L97 6<br />
184<br />
9.B5tz.39bt 8.97t2.44a 10.4tr2.30b" g.77tz.2sb"<br />
g.26!2.zzaÈc g.s2!z-33a 9.81t2.35c<br />
]-977<br />
190<br />
g .7 5t2 . h4b'<br />
g.36t2.27b" g.37t2.3Lb"<br />
Total no. v¡eaned 6.99!2.lí¿l<br />
7.BBtz.zrb" 7.r5!z.o7ab<br />
7.77t2.Lzh"<br />
7.44!z.ogabc 7.6r!2.30"b" 7.52!z.3lab" B.o8t2.3oc<br />
7.85t2.37b" 7.g8!2.32c<br />
Average birch<br />
welght (kg) L.zglo.Llab 1.38t0.19c 1,35r0.19c<br />
1.37t0.18c<br />
1.32t0.18b" 1.32to.t8b" 1.3610.21c<br />
L.z7!o.Lla<br />
1.3410.17c 1.3610.18c<br />
Average weanLng<br />
weight (kg)<br />
11.0912.1lc<br />
11.llt1.6lc<br />
10.54t1.76"b" 10.6It1.66bc 10.7811.66c 10.9911.28c l-0.63t1.92b" 10.1Bt1.4tab 10.11tl.26" 10.9211.34c<br />
tb"Dlff.."rrt<br />
superscrlpE l-ndlcaÈee slgniflcantly<br />
different between years (p
36<br />
envíronment <strong>in</strong> the early stage <strong>of</strong> embryo development. This stage falls<br />
<strong>in</strong> the months <strong>of</strong> January <strong>and</strong> February for group A. Krotch (Lg7s)<br />
studied the effect <strong>of</strong> ínbreed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the dam, <strong>of</strong> the sire <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> the<br />
litter on reproductive perforrnances on Managra gïoup A litters (fron<br />
Jr:ae-July, L96B to June-July 1973) <strong>and</strong> group B litters<br />
(from January-<br />
February 1969 to January-February L974). He reporred thaÈ the <strong>in</strong>breed<strong>in</strong>g<br />
leve1 <strong>in</strong>creased from 7.r3% <strong>in</strong> 1968 to r4.gor" <strong>in</strong> 1973, from 5.9"/" ín<br />
1968 ro 73.89"Á <strong>in</strong> 1973 <strong>and</strong> from 11 .66% ín 1968 to r3.2zz <strong>in</strong> 1973 for<br />
group A sire, dem <strong>and</strong> litters, respectively. The rate <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>breed<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong> group B r¿as less than <strong>in</strong> group A, chang<strong>in</strong>g from 4.L3% ín 1969 to<br />
7-52% <strong>in</strong> 1974 for sire <strong>and</strong> from 4.057" Ln L969 to 7.6L"1 ín L974 for dam,<br />
<strong>and</strong> even decl<strong>in</strong>ed from 11.37" ín 1969 to 9.692 Ln L974 for litters.<br />
No<br />
artifieial selection r,{as applied on all five reproductive traíts. Table<br />
12 <strong>in</strong>dicates diffeïences among yeaïs but no specific trend was observed<br />
<strong>in</strong> any <strong>of</strong> the traits.<br />
II. Heritability<br />
Heritability<br />
estimates<br />
estimates <strong>and</strong> their st<strong>and</strong>ard errors for five reproductive<br />
traits are given ín Table 13. These est<strong>in</strong>ates were derived<br />
from sire components <strong>of</strong> the analysis <strong>of</strong> variance. Heritability estirnates<br />
for three litter size traits are low with high st<strong>and</strong>ard errors <strong>and</strong> are<br />
not significantly different from zero (p
a1<br />
Table 13. Estímated heritabilities<br />
<strong>of</strong> fÍve reproductive traits<br />
variance<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
their st<strong>and</strong>ard errors for each<br />
from the sire component <strong>of</strong><br />
TraÍt<br />
.2 hs<br />
s. E. rnf I<br />
Total no. <strong>of</strong> pigs born<br />
0.07<br />
a -L2<br />
Total no. <strong>of</strong> pigs born alive<br />
0.02<br />
0.72<br />
Total no<br />
<strong>of</strong> pigs weaned<br />
0. 01<br />
o.L2<br />
Average bírth weight<br />
0. 36<br />
0 .11<br />
Average wean<strong>in</strong>g weight<br />
0 .37<br />
0.11
?o )a<br />
reproductive traits.<br />
The high environmental variance <strong>and</strong> the very lor,r<br />
additive <strong>genetic</strong> variance <strong>in</strong>dicates a low response to selection for<br />
litter<br />
III.<br />
sLze traits <strong>in</strong> sw<strong>in</strong>e.<br />
Phenotypic correlations<br />
Phenotypic correlations among five reproductive traits are<br />
presented <strong>in</strong> Table 14. The correlatíon coefficients among three litter<br />
síze traits rüere positive <strong>and</strong> high <strong>and</strong> generally agreed with Teports<br />
from other workers. The high positive correlatíons among the litter<br />
size traits <strong>in</strong>dicate that the dams with larger litter<br />
would also have larger litter<br />
síze at wean<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
síze at birth<br />
The correlatíon coeffícíent between average birth weighË <strong>and</strong><br />
average wean<strong>in</strong>g weight was 0 " 35 which r¡as lor¿er than the report f rom<br />
Young et al. (1978) at 0.56 but was close to the value reported from<br />
Fahrny <strong>and</strong> Bernard (L972) at 0.42. The relationship betvreen lirter<br />
sLze (total number born, number born alive ald number weaned) <strong>and</strong><br />
average pig weight (aË birth <strong>and</strong> aÈ wean<strong>in</strong>g) was negative. This is <strong>in</strong><br />
agreement with the reports fron f'ahmy <strong>and</strong> Bernaxd (L972) <strong>and</strong> Young et al.<br />
(f978). Pigs from smaller litters<br />
tend to have heavy <strong>in</strong>dividual body<br />
weights at birth <strong>and</strong> at wean<strong>in</strong>g. Fahny <strong>and</strong> Bernard (L972) suggesred<br />
that the negative relationship between litter size <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual píg<br />
weight is probably due to differences among litters <strong>of</strong> vary<strong>in</strong>g síze<br />
<strong>in</strong> competition for maternal nutrients.
Table 14. PhenotypÍca <strong>and</strong> <strong>genetic</strong>b correl-atÍons among reproductíve traíts<br />
TraLt<br />
Total no.<br />
born<br />
No.<br />
born a1íve<br />
No. rn¡eaned.<br />
Average<br />
birth weight<br />
Average<br />
wean<strong>in</strong>g weight<br />
Total no. born<br />
0.9210.01<br />
0.6310 .02<br />
-0.3410.03<br />
-0.17t0.03<br />
No. born alive<br />
2.30<br />
0. 7110.02<br />
-0. 3210.03<br />
-0.1610.03<br />
No. weaned<br />
-2.08<br />
-6.20<br />
-0.0610.03<br />
-0.1210.03<br />
Average birth weight<br />
0 . 3010. 46<br />
L.47<br />
4,82<br />
0.3510.03<br />
Average weaníng weight<br />
0.9210.09<br />
L,9L<br />
0 .52t1 .05 0 .L7 lo .2I<br />
tPh.rroËypic correlatíons above the díagonal.<br />
bcenetic correlations below the díagonal.<br />
(,J<br />
\o
40<br />
IV. Genetic correlations<br />
The <strong>genetic</strong> correlations among fíve reproductive traits calculated<br />
from sire conponents <strong>of</strong> covarianee are given ín Table 14. The<br />
correlation coeffícienEs <strong>of</strong> total number born with nuuber born ali-ve<br />
<strong>and</strong> number weaned; <strong>of</strong> number born alive i+ith number weaned, average bírth<br />
weight <strong>and</strong> average weal<strong>in</strong>g weight, <strong>of</strong> number weaned with average birth<br />
weight are greater than unity.<br />
A favorable positíve <strong>genetic</strong> correlation betr¿een total number born<br />
<strong>and</strong> average pig weight at birth <strong>and</strong> at weaníng were found.. The result<br />
is <strong>in</strong> agreement with the reports from young et al. (1978). The contradictory<br />
result betr,¡een <strong>genetic</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>phenotypic</strong> correlation on these<br />
traits could be due to high negative enivronmental covariance components<br />
(Appendix rr).<br />
The high negative environmental covariance<br />
components overcome <strong>genetic</strong> covarÍance components <strong>and</strong> result <strong>in</strong><br />
negative total covariance conponents. The competition for maternal<br />
nutrients could be the reason for thís unfavorable relationship.<br />
B, Carcass Measurements <strong>and</strong> Age to Market l^Ieight<br />
I. lleans <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviations<br />
The weighted <strong>phenotypic</strong> means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviations <strong>of</strong> carcass<br />
measurements <strong>and</strong> age to market weight are shornm ín Table 15<br />
separately for each sex. The differences between barror¡s <strong>and</strong> gilts <strong>in</strong><br />
the means <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> ten traits were -1 .02 cm, .27 cmr.19 cm, .26 cm,<br />
.74 cm, -2.gg .2, -2.L2, -.63"/", -2.03 cn2, <strong>and</strong>. -13.07 days for<br />
carcass length, shoulder fat thickness, míd-back fat thickness,<br />
lo<strong>in</strong> fat thickness, total fat thickness, lo<strong>in</strong> eye area, grade índex,
4L<br />
Table 15 - Means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviations <strong>of</strong> carcass measurements <strong>and</strong> age<br />
to markeË weight for each sex (adjusted for carcass weight,<br />
barro¡¿s : 425, gilts : I,030)<br />
Traits<br />
Carcass length (cn)<br />
Shoulder fat<br />
thickness (cn)<br />
Mid-back<br />
thickness (cm)<br />
Lo<strong>in</strong> fat<br />
ËhÍckness (cn)<br />
Total fat<br />
thickness (cra)<br />
Difference<br />
Sex MeantS.D. (barrows-gí1ts)<br />
M<br />
F<br />
M<br />
F<br />
M<br />
F<br />
M<br />
F<br />
M<br />
F<br />
76.7\x2.55<br />
77 .7 3t2.29<br />
4.3010.51<br />
4 .0310.50<br />
2.LLlo.37<br />
7.92!0.37<br />
3 .34t0.43<br />
3 .08t0 .41<br />
9 .77 !1_ .04<br />
9.0311.06<br />
-l .02't*<br />
o.27xx<br />
0 "<br />
19**<br />
0.26x,\<br />
o .7 4xx<br />
Lo<strong>in</strong> eye )<br />
area (cn-)<br />
Grade <strong>in</strong>dex<br />
"/" Ham weight<br />
Ham surface"<br />
area (cm')<br />
M 28.67!3.54<br />
F 31 .6613. 87<br />
M 100. 7812. 90<br />
F L02.90t2.70<br />
M 26.38!1.70<br />
F 27.0L!L.53<br />
M<br />
F<br />
I24.24!L4.77<br />
L26.27!15.9L<br />
-2.ggxx<br />
ôa^¿J<br />
-0.63**<br />
-2.03x<br />
Age to market weíght M 179"15t14.80<br />
(days) F I92.22!L4.64 -lJ. Q/:c:t<br />
^"P< . 05 ; ;lJrp< . Qf .
4l<br />
% lnam weight, ham surface area, age to market weight, respectively.<br />
Al-1 differences rr'ere statisticalry<br />
signíficant (p
43<br />
Table 16. Means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviations <strong>of</strong> carcass measurements <strong>and</strong><br />
age to market weight traits for each farrow<strong>in</strong>g group<br />
(adjusted for sex <strong>and</strong> carcass weíght)<br />
Trait<br />
n<br />
389<br />
Farrow<strong>in</strong>g group<br />
625<br />
44L<br />
Carcass length (cn)<br />
77 .24!2.r|b<br />
7 6 .28!2 .3La<br />
7 6.53!2.L64<br />
Shoulder fat<br />
thickness (cu)<br />
4.42t0.46b<br />
4.22!0.484<br />
4.27!0.464<br />
Mid-back<br />
thickness (crq)<br />
2 .18t0. 3Bc<br />
2.0810.36b<br />
2. O3t0 . 364<br />
Lo<strong>in</strong> fat<br />
thickness (cto)<br />
3 .33rO.3Bb<br />
3 .33t0.38b<br />
3 .28t0 .38a<br />
Total fat<br />
thickness (cn)<br />
9 .9310 "<br />
91b<br />
g .6gxo.gla<br />
g.6oto.g|a<br />
Lo<strong>in</strong> eye ?<br />
area (.rn-)<br />
28 .3813.614<br />
28.44!3.684<br />
28 . B3t3 .614<br />
Grade <strong>in</strong>dex<br />
gg .67 !2 .Bza<br />
LOO .4L!2.74b<br />
LO} .2L!2.77b<br />
% t,am weight<br />
26 .72!L -6gc<br />
26 .09t1.5g4<br />
zø.4stt.4zb<br />
Hau surface<br />
area ("r2)<br />
LzL.O7!r5.224<br />
725 .45!L4.g6c<br />
L23.O7tLz.g6b<br />
Predic ted<br />
yield (7")<br />
7o .45!z.3Ba<br />
7L.L2t2.47c<br />
70.80t2.20b<br />
Age to market weight<br />
(days)<br />
185 .00114 . B9a<br />
188 .50t16 . 00b<br />
191 .14t15 . BBc<br />
"b"Diff.tent superscripts <strong>in</strong>dicaËe significantly different at p
Table 17. Means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard devlatlons <strong>of</strong> carcasg measuì:enents <strong>and</strong><br />
age to market welght Eralts for each year (adJusted for sex <strong>and</strong> carcass welght)<br />
Trait<br />
n<br />
Carcasg<br />
length (cn)<br />
Shoul-der fat<br />
thickness (crn)<br />
Mld-back fat<br />
thlckneee (cn)<br />
Loln faE<br />
thlckness (cm)<br />
Total fat<br />
lhlckness (cm)<br />
1471<br />
298<br />
7 6 .7 6!2 .46b<br />
4 .37 lO .48c<br />
2.0gr0 .3Bc<br />
3 .4510 . 3Bc<br />
9 .91jO .99cd<br />
1q:77<br />
2t7<br />
7 6 .7 6!2.06b<br />
4 .27!O.46ab<br />
1 .9110 .304<br />
3 .2810.38b<br />
g .47!o.B6a<br />
lq.7i<br />
250<br />
7 6.86!2.2rb<br />
hó<br />
4 .34!O.46""<br />
1.9610.30b<br />
3 .2510 .3Bb<br />
9 .58t0. 94ab<br />
. L974<br />
220<br />
7 6 .33!2 .36b<br />
4.22!0.484<br />
2.0610.33c<br />
3 ,33t0.38b<br />
9.63t0.894b<br />
I9l 5<br />
L65<br />
76.68t1.88b<br />
4.1710.514<br />
2.2g!O .3oe<br />
3.28t0.33b<br />
9 .73t0. B9l'"<br />
1976<br />
202<br />
7 6 .7 3t2 ,24b<br />
4.32t0.43b"<br />
2.36!0 .33f<br />
3.3310. 36b<br />
10.0310.97d<br />
.L97 7<br />
103<br />
7 5 .62!2 .3ga<br />
4.27!0.464<br />
2. 21t0.30d<br />
3.1810.364<br />
9.63t0.97ab<br />
Loln eye )<br />
area (cm-)<br />
Grade lndex<br />
Z ham weight<br />
Ham surface<br />
a.ea (cm2)<br />
Pred fc ted<br />
yleld (Z)<br />
Age to market<br />
wefght (days)<br />
27,48!2.g74<br />
gg .7 5!3 .r3a<br />
26.26!L.64b<br />
125111 .93c<br />
7o.i,oxz.ogb"<br />
L84.72!16.LBa<br />
29,73!3.55c<br />
100 .3912 .53ab<br />
25 .94!L.584<br />
L3L .7 7 !I2 .7 Ie<br />
7L.8g!2.21d<br />
Lgo .23tr6.7 4b"<br />
29 . 0913 .81b"<br />
100.19!2 . B3ab<br />
25 .84!L.474<br />
L25 .g7 !L3 .Ogc<br />
70.76!2.31,c<br />
189.78115 . zBb"<br />
28 .38t3. 68b<br />
gg .93!2,694<br />
25 .g2!r.484<br />
:..2g .32!:16.O6d<br />
7I .62!2.44d<br />
189 .49116 .34bc<br />
27 .35!3.7 4a<br />
-100.6912.50b<br />
26.87t1.38c<br />
109 . 78t10.004<br />
69 . 6011.894<br />
184.99112.824<br />
z9 .03t3. 61b"<br />
gg .g2t2.704<br />
26 .9011 .1 3c<br />
114.17112.13b<br />
70.1512.37b<br />
792.82tr6.34c<br />
29.3513:48c<br />
100.8312.70b<br />
27 .g1¿!l .(t6d<br />
123.13r11.09c<br />
71 .85!2.55d<br />
186 .8 2t11 . 7 74b<br />
abcdef-. -- Dltterent superscrlpt lndicaEes slgnlflcantly<br />
dlfferent at p
45<br />
Most <strong>of</strong> the heritabilities<br />
derived from the dam components Ìùere<br />
higher than those from the sire components. The hígher heritabílity<br />
estimaËes from dem components are possibly due to maternal effects.<br />
The heritability estim¡¡s for carcass length was hÍgh at 0.62<br />
2<br />
(hi*o) <strong>and</strong> fel1 with<strong>in</strong><br />
The herÍtabÍlities<br />
the range reported from other researchers.<br />
for three <strong>in</strong>dividual fat thickness measuremenËs<br />
<strong>and</strong> total back fat thickness were íntermediate <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> good agreement<br />
with values reported by Flock (1970), siers et al. (L912) <strong>and</strong><br />
Roy et a1. (1968) but were considerably lower than the reports from<br />
SnÍth et al. (L962), Jensen er al. (L967), Anganosa er al. (f969),<br />
Enfield <strong>and</strong> Whatley (1961) <strong>and</strong> Fahmy er at. (f970).<br />
The heritability<br />
<strong>of</strong> io<strong>in</strong> eye \"ras .53 <strong>and</strong> was ín close agreement<br />
r¿ith the estimates reported by Flock (1970), Jensen et al. (L967),<br />
Arganosa et al. (1969), smith <strong>and</strong> Ross (1965), Enfield <strong>and</strong> LÏhatley<br />
(1961), Fahmy et al. (1970) <strong>and</strong> Roy er al. (1968) bur was higher rhan<br />
the estimete <strong>of</strong> 0.35 by srníth et al. (1962) <strong>and</strong> r^ras lower than the<br />
estimate reported by Siers eË al. (L972).<br />
The percent ham weight <strong>of</strong> c.arcass side weight rnras moderately<br />
heritable <strong>and</strong> the value estim¡lsd from the presenË study was <strong>in</strong> agreement<br />
wíth other reports.<br />
The herj-tability<br />
<strong>of</strong> ham surface area, percent predicted yield <strong>and</strong><br />
age to market weight were 0.41, 0.56 <strong>and</strong> 0.59, respectively.<br />
The<br />
estimatiorsfor these Ëraits were slightly higher than the values reported<br />
<strong>in</strong> the literature.<br />
In conclusion, Ëhe traits <strong>of</strong> carcass shoulder fat Èhickness, midback<br />
fat thickness, lo<strong>in</strong> fat thickness <strong>and</strong> the percenË ham weight were
Table 18. Heritabil-ity estlnates for carcass measurements <strong>and</strong> age to market weight traits<br />
Trait<br />
h3 =<br />
')<br />
4o7 5<br />
-2--- 2 --z or*oO*o"<br />
.2 h=D<br />
4"3<br />
os*oD*olni<br />
222<br />
h? = 2k3*<strong>of</strong>rl<br />
^'s+D -T--T- -Z<br />
oi+oi+<strong>of</strong>r<br />
Carcass length<br />
Shoulder fat<br />
thickness<br />
Mid-back fat<br />
thickness<br />
Lo<strong>in</strong> fat<br />
thickness<br />
Total fat<br />
thíckness<br />
Lo<strong>in</strong> eye<br />
area<br />
Grade <strong>in</strong>dex<br />
7" ham weight<br />
Ham surface<br />
area<br />
Percent predlcted<br />
yield<br />
Age to rnarket<br />
weíght<br />
0.8610.15<br />
0 .3010 .l_2<br />
0 .1010 . tt<br />
0 . 30t0.11<br />
0 .41r0.l_3<br />
0. t5r0 .13<br />
0.20!0.L2<br />
0 . 33!0 .11<br />
0.3810.12<br />
0 . 3310 .15<br />
0 .3910 .13<br />
0.3910.12<br />
0.4710.15<br />
0.57r0.16<br />
0 .1810 .14<br />
0 .50r0 .14<br />
0.9210.16<br />
0 . 7Br0 .16<br />
0 .1510. 14<br />
0 .4310 . 14<br />
0.7910 .18<br />
0.7910.15<br />
0. 62r0 .08<br />
0. 3910 .07<br />
0 .33t0 . 07<br />
0.24x0.07<br />
0 .4510 .07<br />
0.5310 .07<br />
0.4910.07<br />
0.24!O .07<br />
0 .4110 .07<br />
0.5610.08<br />
0 .5910.08
47<br />
moderately heritable while carcass length, total fat thickness, lo<strong>in</strong><br />
eye area, grade <strong>in</strong>dex, ham surface area, percent predicted yield <strong>and</strong><br />
adjusted age to market weight were highly heritable.<br />
III.<br />
Phenotypic correlations<br />
Phenotypic correlatíons among the eleven traiLs are<br />
summarized <strong>in</strong> Table 19.<br />
Carcass length \,Jas negatively correlated wíth shoulder fal thickness'<br />
mid-back fât thickness, lo<strong>in</strong> fat thickness, lo<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> ham surface<br />
area' <strong>and</strong> age to market weight, but was positively correlated with carcass<br />
grade. The correlations betr¿een carcass length <strong>and</strong> percent ham<br />
weight <strong>and</strong> predicted yield were negligible.<br />
These f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong>dicate<br />
that longer pigs should have l-ower back fat, smaller lo<strong>in</strong> eye <strong>and</strong> ham<br />
surface, faster growth rate <strong>and</strong> higher carcass grade <strong>in</strong>dex. This<br />
f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g was <strong>in</strong> good agreement wíth most reports from previous research.<br />
The relationships among the back fat thickness measurenents were al-l<br />
positive <strong>and</strong> the values ranged from 0.32 to 0.53. similar results<br />
have also been reporred by Smirh et al. (Lg6Z).<br />
Lo<strong>in</strong> eye area !/as negatively correlated with all three back fat<br />
thickness measurements, but was positively correlated wÍth grade, percent<br />
ham weight <strong>and</strong> ham surface area <strong>and</strong> highly positively related to<br />
percent predicted yield.<br />
The association between lo<strong>in</strong> eye area <strong>and</strong><br />
age to market weight was positive but low <strong>in</strong> magnitude. The <strong>phenotypic</strong><br />
correlation coeffÍcients between lo<strong>in</strong> eye area <strong>and</strong> back fat<br />
thickness, percent predicted yield <strong>and</strong> age to market weight reported.<br />
from the present study were fairly<br />
similar to the reports from Smith<br />
et al. (1962), smith <strong>and</strong> Ross (1965), Jensen er ar. (1967), Arganosa
Table 19.<br />
PhenoLyplc correlatÍons among nlne carcass measurements <strong>and</strong> age to narket welghL tralts<br />
Tralt<br />
Carcass length<br />
Shoulder faE<br />
Mid-back far<br />
Loln fat<br />
Total fac<br />
Loln eye area<br />
Grade<br />
Z Han welghr<br />
Ham surface<br />
area<br />
% Predicted<br />
yle1d<br />
Shoulder<br />
fat<br />
-0.1110.03<br />
Back faC Loln fat<br />
-0.1610.03 -0.1610.03<br />
o.32!0 .02 0 .5310 .02<br />
0.3910.02<br />
Loln eye<br />
Total fat area<br />
-0,18t0 .03 -0.1310.03<br />
0. 79i0.02 -0.1810.03<br />
0 .6810.02 -0. 1310.03<br />
0.8110 .02 -0. 20J0.03<br />
_0.22r0.03<br />
Carcas s<br />
lndex<br />
0.1510 .03<br />
-0 .7 6!0 .02<br />
-0 .35r0.02<br />
-0 .7 4!0 .o2<br />
-0.8110.02<br />
0 . 1910 .03<br />
"/. Ham<br />
welgh t<br />
-0 . 0510 .03<br />
-0.1310 .03<br />
0 .0110 . 03<br />
-0.1910.03<br />
-0 . 1310 .03<br />
0. 1 2t0 .03<br />
0.1510.03<br />
Ham surface<br />
ar ea<br />
-0.1410.03<br />
-0 .1510.03<br />
-0.3610 .02<br />
-0,1210.03<br />
-0.2610.03<br />
0.3010.03<br />
0.1410 .03<br />
-0. 2310 .03<br />
Z Predicted<br />
yield<br />
-0.0610 .03<br />
-0.5310.02<br />
-0.5310.02<br />
-0.5310.02<br />
-0 .6910. 02<br />
0.5110.02<br />
0.52!0.O2<br />
0 .0810.03<br />
0.75r0.02<br />
Age<br />
-0.14r0.03<br />
-0.1010 .0 3<br />
-0.22t0.03<br />
-0.1110.03<br />
-0.19r0 .03<br />
0.0910.03<br />
0.03r0.03<br />
0.01r0.03<br />
0 .1510 .03<br />
0.21:0.03<br />
.Þ.<br />
co
,o<br />
AJ<br />
et 41. (L969), Roy er al. (1968), Enfield <strong>and</strong> \,,rharley (1961), Fahmy<br />
<strong>and</strong> Bernard (f970) <strong>and</strong> Swiger er al. (1979).<br />
As expected, the correlations between grade <strong>in</strong>dex <strong>and</strong> back fat<br />
thickness measurements v/eïe highly negative which agreed r¡ith the basic<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ciple <strong>of</strong> the Canadian market hog <strong>in</strong>dex system. The relationships<br />
between grade <strong>in</strong>dex <strong>and</strong> percent ham rveight, ham surface area <strong>and</strong> percent<br />
predicted yield r¡/ere positive.<br />
The carcasses with lower shoulder<br />
or lo<strong>in</strong> fat thickness r¿ill have higheï percent ham weight. Ham surface<br />
area !)as negatively correlated i^rith three back fat thickness measurements<br />
<strong>and</strong> percent ham weighr, but was highly posÍtively correlated<br />
with percent predícted yield.<br />
The negative association between age to market weight <strong>and</strong> the<br />
three back fat measure<strong>in</strong>ents <strong>in</strong>dicated that faster groi+<strong>in</strong>g pigs were<br />
somer,¡hat fatter.<br />
This f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g corresponds to the result described<br />
earlier where faster grow<strong>in</strong>g pigs <strong>in</strong> group A had higher back fat<br />
measltLements <strong>and</strong> ¡^rere lower <strong>in</strong> carcass grade <strong>in</strong>dex <strong>in</strong> conseqrlence. The<br />
positive correlatíons betv¡een age to market rveight <strong>and</strong> h:m surface area<br />
<strong>and</strong> percent predicted yield implied that pígs requir<strong>in</strong>g the longer time<br />
to reach market weight would have larger hem surface area <strong>and</strong> higher<br />
percent predicted yíeld <strong>in</strong> carcasses.<br />
IV. Genetic correlations<br />
Genetic correlations among the<br />
components <strong>of</strong> variance <strong>and</strong> covaríance,<br />
traits, calculated from síre<br />
are presented <strong>in</strong> Table 20.<br />
The <strong>genetic</strong> correlaËions among<br />
eleven traiLs behaved si_ur_ilarly
Table 20. Genetic correlatlons among carc¿rss measurement.s <strong>and</strong> age to rnarket welght<br />
Tral-t<br />
Shoulder<br />
faE<br />
Back fat.<br />
Loln faË<br />
Total fat.<br />
Lo<strong>in</strong> eye<br />
area<br />
Grade<br />
lndex<br />
Z Ham<br />
wefgh E<br />
Ham surface<br />
area<br />
Z Predlcted<br />
y1eld<br />
Àge<br />
Carcass length<br />
Shoulder fat<br />
Mfd-back fat<br />
Loln fat<br />
Tolal fat<br />
Lo<strong>in</strong> eye area<br />
Grade lndex<br />
Z Ham welght<br />
Han surface<br />
area<br />
Z Predlcred<br />
yleld<br />
-0.17r0 .18<br />
-0.0110.32 -0.24!0.L7<br />
]. 40r0.67 0.5610.18<br />
L.42!0.58<br />
-0.1410.16 -7.07!o.46<br />
0.8810.06 0.1810.47<br />
1 .5010. 53 -0.0110. 65<br />
0 .9210.06 0 .5110.55<br />
0.2L!0 .42<br />
O.22!O.22<br />
-1 . 0410 .13<br />
-1 .5510 .71<br />
-1 .3010.21<br />
-1. 2510.18<br />
-1 .0210. 91<br />
0 ,0210 .1 7<br />
-0.3610.24<br />
-0.7610.4 9<br />
-0.20!o.24<br />
-0. 3510 .21<br />
-0.19r0.42<br />
0.6210. 30<br />
-0. 6010 .16<br />
-0.49!O.24<br />
-0.6110.48<br />
-0.1410. 24<br />
-0.4610.20<br />
0.64t0.32<br />
o.L2!0 .32<br />
0 .1610. 23<br />
-0.43t0. 19<br />
-0.86t0.14<br />
-1.3010.53<br />
-0 .5510.18<br />
-0.8510 .10<br />
0.2810.36<br />
0. 78t0.20<br />
0.3010. 24<br />
0.8310.10<br />
-0 . 27r0 .16<br />
-0.6110.28<br />
-0. 9610 . 5B<br />
-0.18r0.19<br />
-0.57!0,22<br />
0.1210.38<br />
0.79t0.4?<br />
0.1310.24<br />
0.3310.23<br />
0.5510.25<br />
L¡I<br />
O
51<br />
to <strong>phenotypic</strong> correlations <strong>in</strong> most cases although the <strong>genetic</strong> correlations<br />
were higher. Several values outsíde the theoretical range (rG , 1 o,<br />
tG ' - 1) were found, i.e. mid-back fat with shoulder fat, lo<strong>in</strong> fat<br />
<strong>and</strong> total fat, carcass length with lo<strong>in</strong> eye area, grade índex with three<br />
back faË thickness measurenents <strong>and</strong> total fat thickness <strong>and</strong> lo<strong>in</strong> eye<br />
area' mid-back fat with percent predÍcted yíeld.<br />
coefficients are high <strong>in</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard error.<br />
Most <strong>genetic</strong><br />
The back fat thÍckness measurements at three different po<strong>in</strong>ts were<br />
highly positively correlated with each orher. A si_milar f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g has<br />
been reported by smith et a1. (L962). selection for 1or¿er back faË<br />
thickness at one location will reduce thickness at other areas <strong>and</strong><br />
average back fat.<br />
Carcass length had moderately negative correlations with shoulder<br />
fat, loÍn faÈ, total fat <strong>and</strong> age to markeË weight. The correlations<br />
betr¿een carcass length <strong>and</strong> ham surface area <strong>and</strong> percent predicted yield<br />
were highly negarive. snith er a1. (Lg62), smith <strong>and</strong> Ross (1965),<br />
Jensen et al. (1967), Flock (L970), siers <strong>and</strong> Thomson (L972), Enfield<br />
<strong>and</strong> I^Ihatley (1961) <strong>and</strong> Roy eÈ a1. (196g) also showed that negarive<br />
correlatÍons existed between carcass length <strong>and</strong> carcass back fat <strong>and</strong><br />
percent lean cuts. Lo<strong>in</strong> eye area was positively correlated Ì,¡ith lo<strong>in</strong><br />
fat which suggested that selection for lower back fat at lo<strong>in</strong> would<br />
reduce lo<strong>in</strong> eye area simultaneously. This result is not <strong>in</strong> agreement<br />
wÍth reports from previ-ous research.<br />
Percent han weight \474s negatively correlated with a1l three back<br />
fat thickness measurements <strong>and</strong> 1oÍn eye area <strong>and</strong> the values ranged from<br />
medium to hÍgh, but it was positively correlated with ham surface area,
52<br />
percent predicted yield, grade <strong>and</strong> age to r¡arket weíght, the coefficients<br />
ranged from low to hígh.<br />
The relationships between ham sur_<br />
face <strong>and</strong> shoulder fat, mid-back fat <strong>and</strong> total back fat thickness measure*<br />
mentswere highly negative' whíle the relationshÍp betr¿een ham surface<br />
area <strong>and</strong> percent predicted yield was highly positive which suggested<br />
that selection for larger hau surface area would. <strong>in</strong>crease percent predicred<br />
yield.<br />
The high negatíve correlations between percent predicted yield <strong>and</strong><br />
back fat thíckness measurernents <strong>in</strong>dicat.ed that selection for lower<br />
back fat thiekness would signifícantly <strong>in</strong>crease the percent predicted<br />
yÍeld. selection for larger ro<strong>in</strong> eye area, percent ham weight, ham<br />
surface area or grade <strong>in</strong>dex should lead to an <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> peïcent predicted<br />
yÍeld.<br />
The correlations betr¿een age to markeÈ weÍght <strong>and</strong> backfat thíckness<br />
measurements rùere highly negative except for lo<strong>in</strong> fat which Índicated<br />
that sel-ection for fasL growth rate would Íncrease back fat thickness<br />
<strong>and</strong> decrease carcass grade <strong>in</strong>dex <strong>in</strong> consequence. The relationships<br />
between age Lo market weight <strong>and</strong> grade <strong>in</strong>dex, ham surface area <strong>and</strong> percent<br />
predícted yield were positive <strong>and</strong> high.<br />
These f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs suggested<br />
that selectíon for lower back fat or hÍgher grade <strong>in</strong>dex or srnaller ham<br />
surface area or higher percent predicted yield would tend to <strong>in</strong>crease<br />
age to market weight unless the traits \¡/ere comb<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> a selectÍon<br />
i-ndex.
53<br />
SI]MMARY AND CONCLUSION<br />
Data from L,268 first<br />
parity gilts <strong>and</strong> from r,455 rnarket pigs <strong>of</strong><br />
the Managra breed were analyzed to estimate <strong>phenotypic</strong> <strong>and</strong>. <strong>genetic</strong><br />
parameLers for five reproductive trairs,<br />
ten carcass measurements <strong>and</strong><br />
age at 90 kg live weight.<br />
Heritability<br />
estimates v¡ere calculated from Ëhe sire coûponent<br />
<strong>of</strong> variance. Three litter<br />
size traits <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g total number <strong>of</strong> pigs<br />
born, nurnber <strong>of</strong> pigs born alive <strong>and</strong> number <strong>of</strong> pigs weaned had lor¿ heritabilities<br />
i¿hich <strong>in</strong>dicate that litt1e response would be expected from<br />
selection.<br />
Average birth weÍght <strong>and</strong> wean<strong>in</strong>g weíght had moderate heritabilities<br />
which reveals that about 40"Á <strong>of</strong> the differences <strong>in</strong> these traits<br />
r'¡ere attributable to geneLic causes <strong>and</strong> r¡ould be expected to be transruitted<br />
to <strong>of</strong>fspr<strong>in</strong>g from parents. Phenotypic correlations among three<br />
litter<br />
size traits were hÍgh1y positíve <strong>and</strong> generally agreed with the<br />
results from previous research. Average birth weight was moderately<br />
correlated <strong>phenotypic</strong>ally with average wean<strong>in</strong>g weÍght. <strong>phenotypic</strong> correlations<br />
between litter<br />
sÍze tralts <strong>and</strong> average pig weight at birth <strong>and</strong><br />
wean<strong>in</strong>g were moderately negative except the correlation between<br />
nr:mber weaned <strong>and</strong> average pig birth weight. Genetic correlations between<br />
total number born <strong>and</strong> average birth weight <strong>and</strong> average r+ean<strong>in</strong>g weight<br />
were 0.3010.46 <strong>and</strong> O.92t0.A9, respectively.<br />
Genetíc correlations between<br />
average pig wean<strong>in</strong>g weÍght <strong>and</strong> nr-rmber <strong>of</strong> pÍgs weaned <strong>and</strong> average birth<br />
weight were 0.52!L.05 <strong>and</strong> O.L7XO.2L, respectively.<br />
Heri'tability<br />
estimates for carcass neasurements <strong>and</strong> age at 90 kg<br />
live weÍght T/¡ere anaLyzed by hierarchÍcal .analysis<br />
<strong>of</strong> varíance. Three<br />
carcass back fat thícknesses (maximum shoulder fat, m<strong>in</strong>imum mid-back
54<br />
fat <strong>and</strong> lo<strong>in</strong> fat), total back fat thíckness, grade <strong>in</strong>dex, T" ]'am weight<br />
<strong>and</strong> ham surface area \¡/ere moderaËely heritable. The heritabilities <strong>of</strong><br />
carcass length, lo<strong>in</strong> eye area, "/" preð.icted yield <strong>and</strong> age at 90 kg live<br />
weight were high <strong>and</strong> ranged from 0.53-0.62. Moderate <strong>and</strong> high response<br />
would be expected from selection <strong>of</strong> those traits.<br />
<strong>phenotypic</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>genetic</strong> correlations vrere calculated from analysis <strong>of</strong> covariance.<br />
Phenotypic correlations <strong>of</strong> carcass length with three back fat thicknesses,<br />
loj-n eye area, ham surface area <strong>and</strong> age at 90 kg live weÍght<br />
r{ere negatÍve but smaIl. The <strong>phenotypic</strong> correlations among three back<br />
faÈ thicknesses were positÍve <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>termediate. Lo<strong>in</strong> eye area \¡/as<br />
negatively correlated i¡Íth three back fat thicknesses but was positively<br />
correlated with grade <strong>in</strong>dex, T" ]r,am weight, ham surface area <strong>and</strong> % predicted<br />
yield-<br />
Grade <strong>in</strong>dex was highly negatively correlated r¿ith three<br />
back fat thicknesses <strong>and</strong> was positively correlated r¿ith Z :ham weíght,<br />
ham surface area <strong>and</strong> % predicted yierd.<br />
Ham surface area 'sas<br />
negatively<br />
correlated ¡¿ith back fat thÍcknesses <strong>and</strong> "/" :ham weÍghË but was<br />
positively correlated with Z predicted yíeld.<br />
Phenotypic correlations<br />
<strong>of</strong> age at 90 kg live weight r¿ith three back fat thicknesses Trere<br />
negative but sroall. The relationship <strong>of</strong> age at 90 kg rive r^¡eight \^/ith<br />
ham surface area <strong>and</strong> "/" predicted yÍe1d was positive.<br />
Genetic correlatíons<br />
among carcass measurement <strong>and</strong> age at ng ut live weighÈ<br />
generally behaved siurilarly to the phenotypíc correlations but v¡ere<br />
higher <strong>in</strong> rnagnÍtude. Most <strong>of</strong> the <strong>genetic</strong> correlations had hÍgh st<strong>and</strong>ard<br />
errors.<br />
In conclusion, most carcass traÍts \,Jere<br />
each other whÍch <strong>in</strong>dicates that selection for<br />
favorabl-y correlated with<br />
one carcass trait would
55<br />
also improve Ëhe others where several carcass traits \,rere considered<br />
simultaneously <strong>in</strong> a breed<strong>in</strong>g program. The relationshipsbeiween growth<br />
rate i.e. age at 90 kg líve weight <strong>and</strong> carcass traits r¿ere unfavorable.
56<br />
LITERATJRE CITED<br />
Arganosa, V.G., I.T. Orntvedt <strong>and</strong> L.E. Walters.<br />
genetypic <strong>parameters</strong> <strong>of</strong> some carcass traits<br />
An. Sci. 28:I6B-L14.<br />
L969. Phenorypic <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong> sw<strong>in</strong>e. J. <strong>of</strong><br />
Baik, D.H., Y.K. Park, B.K, Ohh <strong>and</strong> S.i^I. Han. Ig74. Heritabilities<br />
repeatabllÍties, <strong>and</strong> geneiic correlations among litter size,<br />
1Ítter weight, <strong>and</strong> gestaLion length Ín sw<strong>in</strong>e. Korean J. <strong>of</strong> An.<br />
Sci. L6(2):L52-I57 .<br />
Becker, W.A. L967. Manual <strong>of</strong> procedures <strong>in</strong><br />
(2nd ed.), I^lashfngton State University<br />
University, pullman, I,Iash<strong>in</strong>gton.<br />
quantitative geneties<br />
Press, InJash<strong>in</strong>gton State<br />
Beresk<strong>in</strong>, 8., c.E. shelby <strong>and</strong> L.N. Hazel. Lg7L. carcass traits <strong>of</strong><br />
purebred Duroc <strong>and</strong> yorkshires <strong>and</strong> their crosses. J. <strong>of</strong> An.<br />
Sci. 32:4L3-4L9.<br />
Boylan, w.J., trrr.E. Remper <strong>and</strong> R.E. comstock. Lg6r. Heritability<br />
litter size <strong>in</strong> sw<strong>in</strong>e. J. <strong>of</strong> An. ScÍ. 20:566_568.<br />
<strong>of</strong><br />
Enfield, F.D. <strong>and</strong> J-4. Idhatley, Jr. 1961. Heritability <strong>of</strong> carcass<br />
length' carcass backfat thíckness <strong>and</strong> lo<strong>in</strong> lean area <strong>in</strong> swíne.<br />
J. <strong>of</strong> An. Sei. 20:63I-634.<br />
Edwards, R.L. <strong>and</strong> r.T. ûntvedt. Lg7L. Genetic anarysÍs <strong>of</strong> a sr¿<strong>in</strong>e<br />
populatÍon. rr. Estimates <strong>of</strong> population paraÐeters. J. <strong>of</strong> An.<br />
Sci. 32:185-190.<br />
Fahmy, M.H. <strong>and</strong> C.S. Bernard. Ig7O.<br />
score on the <strong>genetic</strong> improvement<br />
Can. J. <strong>of</strong> An. Sci. 50:585-592.<br />
Effect <strong>of</strong> selectíon for carcass<br />
<strong>of</strong> its components <strong>in</strong> sw<strong>in</strong>e.<br />
Fahny, M.H. <strong>and</strong> C.S. Bernard. Lg7O.<br />
pre- <strong>and</strong> post-wean<strong>in</strong>g weights <strong>and</strong><br />
An. Sci. 50:593-599.<br />
Genetic <strong>and</strong> <strong>phenotypic</strong> study <strong>of</strong><br />
ga<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> sr¿<strong>in</strong>e. Can. J. <strong>of</strong><br />
Fahmy, M.H. <strong>and</strong> c.s. Bernard. Lg7z. rnterrelations between some<br />
reproductive traïts <strong>in</strong> sw<strong>in</strong>e. can. J. <strong>of</strong> An. sci. 52239-45.<br />
Fahny, M"H. <strong>and</strong> c.s. Bernard. Lg72. Reproductive performance<br />
gilts<br />
<strong>of</strong><br />
from l<strong>in</strong>es selected for feed utilízatíon <strong>and</strong> carcass score.<br />
Can. J. An. Sci. 52:267_27L.<br />
Falconer, D.s. 1960. rntroduetion to quantitative <strong>genetic</strong>s. Eighth<br />
Pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g, Ronald press, New.york.
57<br />
Flock, D.K. 1970. Genetic <strong>parameters</strong> <strong>of</strong> German L<strong>and</strong>race pigs estimated<br />
fron different relationships. J. <strong>of</strong> An, Sci. 30 :839-843.<br />
Huntsberger, D.V. <strong>and</strong> p. Bill<strong>in</strong>gsley.<br />
<strong>in</strong>ference (4ttr ed.), pp. 2j4_277.<br />
Lg77 " Elements <strong>of</strong><br />
s tat is tical<br />
Jensen, P., H.B. craig <strong>and</strong> O.tr^r. Robison. 1967. <strong>phenotypic</strong> <strong>and</strong> genetÍc<br />
associations among carcass traits <strong>of</strong> swíne. J. <strong>of</strong> An, scí.<br />
26:I252-L260 .<br />
Krotch, K.M. 1975 - The effects <strong>of</strong> sire <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>breed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the dam <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> the litter on pre\^Tean<strong>in</strong>g traits <strong>in</strong> a <strong>closed</strong> breed <strong>of</strong> si¿<strong>in</strong>e.<br />
M.Sc. Thesis, University <strong>of</strong>. l"fanitoba.<br />
Parker, R-J. 197L. Development <strong>of</strong> the Managra - A new breed <strong>of</strong> sw<strong>in</strong>e.<br />
Dept. <strong>of</strong> Animal science, university <strong>of</strong> r"r¿nitoba (unpublished<br />
paper) .<br />
Revelle, T.J. <strong>and</strong> o.I^I. Robison. L973. An ex,olanation for the 1ow<br />
heritability <strong>of</strong> litter síze <strong>in</strong> sw<strong>in</strong>e. J. <strong>of</strong> An. Sci.37:668-615.<br />
Robertson, A. L959. The sampl<strong>in</strong>g variance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>genetic</strong> correlation<br />
coefficient. Biometrics. L5:469-485.<br />
Roy, G.L., i^I .J. Boylan <strong>and</strong> M,E. Sea1e. 1968. Estirnates <strong>of</strong> <strong>genetic</strong><br />
correlat.ions among certa<strong>in</strong> carcass <strong>and</strong> performance traits <strong>in</strong><br />
sw<strong>in</strong>e. Can. J. <strong>of</strong> An. Sci. 48:1-6.<br />
siers, D.G. <strong>and</strong> G.M. Thomson. Lglz. Heritabilities <strong>and</strong> <strong>genetic</strong> correlations<br />
<strong>of</strong> carcass <strong>and</strong> growth traits <strong>in</strong> sw<strong>in</strong>e. J. An. scÍ.<br />
35 : 311-316.<br />
s'ith, c., J.I^l .8. K<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> N. Gilbert. L962. Genetic <strong>parameters</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
British Large l^Ihite bacon pigs. An. prod. 4zLZB-L43.<br />
s*ith, c. <strong>and</strong> G.J.s. Ross. 1965. Genetíc <strong>parameters</strong> <strong>of</strong> British<br />
L<strong>and</strong>race bacon pigs. An. prod.7:29I-30L.<br />
snedecor, G.w. <strong>and</strong> i,J.G. cochran. Lg76. statistical Merhods.<br />
sixth Edition. The roi¿a state uníversity press, Ames, rowa.<br />
stockhausen, c.w.F. <strong>and</strong> LrI.J. Boylan. L966. Heritability <strong>and</strong> <strong>genetic</strong><br />
correlation estimates <strong>in</strong> a ne\¡r breed <strong>of</strong> sw<strong>in</strong>e. can. J. <strong>of</strong> An.<br />
Sci. 46:21L-2I6.'<br />
strang, G-s. <strong>and</strong> J.I,I.B. K<strong>in</strong>g. Lg7o. LiLter productivity <strong>in</strong> Large<br />
hlhite pigs. An. Prod. L2(Z) 2235-243.
58<br />
swiger, L.A. '<br />
G.A. rsrer <strong>and</strong> i^I .R. Harvey. rg7g. postwean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>genetic</strong><br />
parâmeters <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>dexes for sw<strong>in</strong>e. J. An. sci. 48:1096-1100.<br />
Urban, Lï.E., Jr., C.E. Shelby, A.B. Chapman, J.A. irì.hatley, Jr. <strong>and</strong><br />
V'A' Garwood. L966. Genetíc <strong>and</strong> environmental r"på"t" <strong>of</strong> litter<br />
size <strong>in</strong> sw<strong>in</strong>e" J. <strong>of</strong> Arr. Sci. 25:1148_1153.<br />
Young, L.D., R.A. pumfrey, p.J. Cunn<strong>in</strong>gham <strong>and</strong> D.R. Zímmerman. L978.<br />
HerÍtabilities <strong>and</strong> <strong>genetic</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>phenotypic</strong> correlations for prepr<strong>in</strong>ciple<br />
components.<br />
breed<strong>in</strong>g traits, reproductive traits <strong>and</strong><br />
J. <strong>of</strong> Än. Sci. 46:937-949.
APPENDIX<br />
s9
Appendix r. Analysis <strong>of</strong> variance <strong>of</strong> reproductive traits<br />
Mean squares<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
varíation<br />
Year<br />
Group/yr.<br />
Sire/group/yr.<br />
LitËer/si re / gr o:up / yr,<br />
D. F.<br />
9<br />
20<br />
4LB<br />
B1_6<br />
Total no.<br />
born<br />
l_7 . 83<br />
29 .47<br />
5 .08<br />
4.84<br />
No. born<br />
alive<br />
No.<br />
weaned<br />
15 .67 13.58<br />
30 .23 26.24<br />
4.58 4 .69<br />
4.53 4.68<br />
Ave.<br />
birth wt.<br />
0 .18<br />
0 .18<br />
0"04<br />
0 .03<br />
Ave.<br />
wn. wt"<br />
l-6.53<br />
10 .71<br />
2"75<br />
2.L4<br />
2<br />
ú<br />
S<br />
0.084<br />
0 .018 0 .006<br />
0.003<br />
0.22<br />
2<br />
6 "w<br />
4.84<br />
4.53<br />
4.68<br />
0 .03<br />
2.r4<br />
Or<br />
O
Appendix rr. Anal-ysis <strong>of</strong> covarÍance <strong>of</strong> reproducti_ve traits<br />
Mean cross products<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
covariance<br />
Year<br />
GrouB/yr.<br />
D.F.<br />
9<br />
20<br />
Total no.<br />
born <strong>and</strong><br />
no. born<br />
alÍve<br />
15.97<br />
29.L5<br />
Total- no.<br />
born <strong>and</strong><br />
no. weaned<br />
I .70<br />
23.84<br />
Total no.<br />
born <strong>and</strong><br />
ave. bírth<br />
wt.<br />
-L.L2<br />
0.74<br />
Total no.<br />
born <strong>and</strong><br />
ave .h7n.I,It.<br />
-3 .48<br />
-3.43<br />
No. born<br />
alive <strong>and</strong><br />
no. weaned<br />
9 .13<br />
25.23<br />
Sire/group/yr .<br />
Litter/sire/<br />
group/yr<br />
Cov,<br />
418<br />
816<br />
4.47<br />
4.22<br />
0 .09<br />
2.85<br />
2.98<br />
-0.05<br />
-0. l-5<br />
-0 .16<br />
0.005<br />
-0.34<br />
-0. 6B<br />
0.I2<br />
3.09<br />
3.27<br />
-0 .07<br />
Cov"<br />
4.22<br />
2.98<br />
-0.16<br />
-0.68<br />
3.27<br />
o\<br />
F
Appendix II (Contínued)<br />
Mean cross products<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
covariance<br />
Year<br />
Group/yr.<br />
Sire/grouplyr.<br />
Litter/síre/<br />
gtoupf y'r.<br />
Cov,<br />
D.F.<br />
9<br />
20<br />
418<br />
816<br />
No. born<br />
alÍve <strong>and</strong><br />
ave.bírth<br />
vüt.<br />
-r.04<br />
0. 70<br />
-0. 13<br />
-0.16<br />
0. 01<br />
No. born<br />
alive <strong>and</strong><br />
ave " T.{Tr.<br />
I^rt .<br />
-4.L6<br />
-4.53<br />
-0.27<br />
-0.61<br />
0.L2<br />
No. weaned<br />
<strong>and</strong> ave.<br />
birth rn¡t.<br />
-0.03<br />
0. 84<br />
-0 .002<br />
-0.06<br />
0.02<br />
No. weaned<br />
<strong>and</strong> ave.<br />
wn. wt.<br />
-4.60<br />
_t 70<br />
L.l )<br />
-0.34<br />
-0. 39<br />
0 .02<br />
Ave. birth<br />
wt. <strong>and</strong><br />
aVe "vm.r,¡t.<br />
0.39<br />
0.68<br />
0 .10<br />
0.09<br />
0 .005<br />
Cov,<br />
-0. 16<br />
-0 .61<br />
-0.06<br />
-0. 39<br />
0 .09<br />
o\<br />
N)
Appendlx rrr'<br />
Ànalysfs <strong>of</strong> varlance <strong>of</strong> carcass neasurements <strong>and</strong> age to harket wefght<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
varLaÈion<br />
Year<br />
Group/year<br />
Slre/group/yr.<br />
Da¡/efre/group/<br />
D. F.<br />
6<br />
13<br />
269<br />
yr. 368<br />
Progeny/dan/<br />
elre/group/<br />
yr. 798<br />
2<br />
os<br />
)<br />
oD<br />
Carcaeg<br />
length<br />
3.901<br />
5.055<br />
L.497<br />
o.676<br />
0.523<br />
0.t62<br />
0.074<br />
Shoulder<br />
faE<br />
0.157<br />
0.277<br />
0 .046<br />
0.033<br />
0.o25<br />
0 .002<br />
0.004<br />
Mfd-back<br />
faE<br />
Loln<br />
fat<br />
0.887 0.254<br />
0.153 0.095<br />
0.020 0.028<br />
0.018 0.020<br />
0.013 0.o18<br />
0.0004 0.0016<br />
0.0022 0.0010<br />
Total<br />
fat<br />
Mean gquares<br />
Loln eye<br />
area<br />
L.263 4.283<br />
0.932 2.105<br />
0.203 0.418<br />
0.132 0.344<br />
0.099 0.209<br />
0.013 0.011<br />
0 .016 0.066<br />
Grade<br />
lndex<br />
PercenÈ<br />
hau wt.<br />
28.6]-2 85.599<br />
42.438 30.891<br />
I0.822 2.649<br />
8.571 1.840<br />
5.594 t.694<br />
0.360 0.159<br />
t.443 0.071<br />
Ham eurface<br />
area<br />
295.333<br />
60.943<br />
5.192<br />
3.481<br />
2.7L8<br />
0.323<br />
0.370<br />
Percerrt<br />
pred.yfeld Ape<br />
146.259 1869.03<br />
55.901 2134.2r<br />
7.442 380.84<br />
5.246 255.15<br />
3.355 162.02<br />
0.385 22.56L<br />
0.91 7 45 .L40<br />
ot.¡<br />
0.523<br />
0.025<br />
0.0130 0.0183<br />
0.099 0.209<br />
5.594 1.694<br />
2.7L8<br />
3.355 162.020<br />
o\<br />
(¡J
Appendlx IV. Analysls <strong>of</strong> covarlance <strong>of</strong> carcass neasurements <strong>and</strong> age to market welght<br />
Mean cross products<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
covarlance<br />
Yeãr<br />
Group/yr.<br />
SIre/ group/yr.<br />
D. F.<br />
Darn/ slre / group /<br />
yr. 368<br />
6<br />
13<br />
269<br />
ProEeny / dan/<br />
eLre/ Eroupf<br />
yr. 798<br />
Carcass length<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
shoulder fat<br />
0.379<br />
0.580<br />
-0.048<br />
-0 "029<br />
-0.017<br />
Carcass length<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
m1d-back fat<br />
-0.454<br />
0.44'J.<br />
-0.030<br />
-0 .0 28<br />
-0.019<br />
Carcass length<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
1o1n fat<br />
0.381<br />
0.118<br />
-0 .03s<br />
-0 . 017<br />
-0.024<br />
Carcass length<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
total fat<br />
0.333<br />
T.T26<br />
-0.109<br />
-0.076<br />
-0 .060<br />
Carcass lengLh<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
loln eye area<br />
-0.475<br />
-1. 386<br />
-0.223<br />
-0 .006<br />
-0 .011<br />
Cov^ò<br />
Cov- l)<br />
Cov,,<br />
-0 .00 3<br />
-0 .006<br />
-0.017<br />
-0 .0001<br />
-0.0046<br />
-0.0l-89<br />
-0.0040<br />
0.0030<br />
-0.0237<br />
-0.0062<br />
-0.0076<br />
-0 .0602<br />
-0.Ot |tt<br />
0.0021<br />
-0.0107<br />
. Con t lnued<br />
o¡\<br />
¡-
Appendlx IV (Conr<strong>in</strong>ued)<br />
Mean cross products<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
covarlance<br />
D. F.<br />
Carcass l-ength<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
grade lndex<br />
Carcass length<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
% ham ¡¿t.<br />
Carcass length<br />
<strong>and</strong> ham<br />
surface area<br />
Carcass l.ength<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
% pred. yleld<br />
Carcass length<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
agg__<br />
Year<br />
6<br />
-3.744<br />
-rt.027<br />
-1.948<br />
-tr.202<br />
B. 180<br />
Group/yr.<br />
L3<br />
-6 .090<br />
4.265<br />
-I2.725<br />
-11.866<br />
-82.937<br />
Slre/group/yr.<br />
269<br />
0.797<br />
-0 .085<br />
-0.759<br />
-0 .389<br />
-4.895<br />
Daml eLrel group/yr.<br />
368<br />
0.507<br />
-0.080<br />
-0.071<br />
0.133<br />
-1.993<br />
Progeny/darn ls'Ixel<br />
group I yr .<br />
798<br />
0.313<br />
-0.036<br />
0.002<br />
0,r29<br />
0.2L6<br />
Covr'<br />
0.053<br />
0 .000 3<br />
-0.1382<br />
-0.1069<br />
-o.522<br />
Covo<br />
0.094<br />
-0.0213<br />
-0.0354<br />
0.0019<br />
-1.071<br />
Cov,<br />
0.313<br />
-0.03s9<br />
0.0021<br />
o.1292<br />
o.2t6<br />
cr\<br />
Ln
Appendlx IV (Contlnued)<br />
Mean cross rrroducts<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
covariance<br />
Year<br />
Group/yr.<br />
Slre/group/yr.<br />
Dam/ eíre / group /yr .<br />
Progeny/dam / sLre/<br />
group/yr.<br />
Cov,<br />
D. F.<br />
6<br />
13<br />
269<br />
368<br />
798<br />
Shoui.der fat<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
mld-back fat<br />
-0.080<br />
0.077<br />
0 .016<br />
0.009<br />
0.006<br />
0.0013<br />
Shoulder fat<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
lo<strong>in</strong> fat<br />
0.113<br />
0 .097<br />
0.021<br />
0 .015<br />
0 .010<br />
0.0011<br />
Shoulder fac<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
toEal faE<br />
0.182<br />
0.430<br />
0 ,082<br />
0 .0s5<br />
0.039<br />
0.0049<br />
Shoulder fat<br />
<strong>and</strong> lo<strong>in</strong><br />
eye area<br />
-0.030<br />
0.028<br />
-0.032<br />
-0.032<br />
-0.009<br />
0 .0009<br />
Shoulder fat<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
grade <strong>in</strong>dex<br />
-1. 386<br />
-3.182<br />
-0,560<br />
-0. 395<br />
-0.290<br />
-0.0301<br />
CovO<br />
0 .0016<br />
0.0024<br />
0.0077<br />
-0.0114<br />
-0.050 7<br />
Cov"<br />
0.0056<br />
0.0102<br />
0.0393<br />
-0.0088<br />
-0.2903<br />
o.<br />
cl\
Appendlx IV (Conrlnued)<br />
Mean cross Droducts<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
covarlance<br />
Year<br />
Group/yr.<br />
Slre/group/yr.<br />
Dam/ sfte/ group /yr .<br />
Progeny/dan I strel<br />
gxoup /yr .<br />
Cov,<br />
D. F.<br />
6<br />
13<br />
269<br />
368<br />
798<br />
Shoulder fat<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
Z ham wt.<br />
-0.953<br />
0.489<br />
-0.088<br />
-0.049<br />
-0 .019<br />
-0.0069<br />
Shoulder fat<br />
<strong>and</strong> ham<br />
gurface area<br />
7 .443<br />
-o.644<br />
-0.128<br />
-0 .060<br />
-0.049<br />
-0.0135<br />
Shoulder fat<br />
<strong>and</strong> Z<br />
pred, vle1d<br />
-1 .041<br />
-t.3r2<br />
-0. 388<br />
-0.247<br />
-0.160<br />
-o.0257<br />
Shoulder fat<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
åge<br />
-0.416<br />
-9.79r<br />
-0.631<br />
0.024<br />
-0.180<br />
-0. 1403<br />
Mld-back far<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
l<strong>of</strong>n fat<br />
0.005<br />
0.044<br />
0.014<br />
0.009<br />
0.006<br />
0.0011<br />
CovO<br />
Cov*<br />
-0.0146<br />
-0.0190<br />
-0.0053<br />
-0.0492<br />
-o.0423<br />
-0 .1600<br />
0.0991<br />
-0.1801<br />
0.0013<br />
0 .0060<br />
Con t lnu ed<br />
cl'<br />
!
Appendlx IV (Contlnued)<br />
Mean ctoss products<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
covarlance<br />
Year<br />
Group/yr.<br />
SLre/ Erorplyr .<br />
Dam/ eLre/ group /yr.<br />
. Progeny/dar¡.l she/<br />
group/yr.<br />
Cov,<br />
Cov'<br />
D.F.<br />
6<br />
13<br />
269<br />
368<br />
798<br />
Mld-back fac<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
total faË<br />
0.77 4<br />
0.273<br />
0 .050<br />
0.032<br />
0.024<br />
0.0033<br />
0 .0039<br />
trfld-back fat<br />
<strong>and</strong> loln<br />
eve area<br />
-0.658<br />
-0.260<br />
-0.009<br />
-0.008<br />
-0.002<br />
-0 . 0000 3<br />
-0.0027<br />
Mld-back far<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
prade lndex<br />
0.299<br />
-0.7 44<br />
-0.251<br />
-0.153<br />
-0.093<br />
-0.018<br />
-o.029<br />
I'fld-back far<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
Z ha¡o r¿È,<br />
6. 785<br />
0.319<br />
-0.065<br />
-0.034<br />
-0.022<br />
-0.0058<br />
-0.005 7<br />
Mld-back fat<br />
<strong>and</strong> ham<br />
surface area<br />
-I4.387<br />
-I.9I7<br />
-0.065<br />
-0.031<br />
-0 .025<br />
-0.0067<br />
-0 .0032<br />
Cov"<br />
o.0243<br />
-0.0022<br />
-0.093<br />
-0.0224<br />
-0 .0248<br />
o\<br />
co
Appendlx IV (Contlnued)<br />
Mean cross products<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
covariance<br />
Year<br />
Group /yr.<br />
Sire/group/yr.<br />
Daml elrel group/yr.<br />
Progeny/darn /al:el<br />
group/yr.<br />
Cov,<br />
D. P.<br />
6<br />
13<br />
269<br />
368<br />
798<br />
Mld-back fat<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
% pred.yLeLð,<br />
-7.109<br />
-2.386<br />
-0.22L<br />
-0.138<br />
-0.096<br />
-0 .016<br />
Mld-back fat<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
age<br />
-0. 705<br />
-9.653<br />
-0.683<br />
-0.274<br />
-0.41-1<br />
-0 .088<br />
Loln fat<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
total fat<br />
0.359<br />
0. 239<br />
0 .065<br />
0.043<br />
0.034<br />
0.0042<br />
Lo<strong>in</strong> fat<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
Lo<strong>in</strong> eye area<br />
-0.67L<br />
-0.079<br />
-0.019<br />
-0.026<br />
-0,005<br />
0.0021<br />
Loln fat<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
Erade. lndex<br />
-2.259<br />
-t .339<br />
-0 .452<br />
-0.291<br />
-0.239<br />
-0.0309<br />
CovO<br />
-0.020<br />
0.066<br />
0.0042<br />
-0 .0100<br />
-0.0254<br />
Cov,<br />
-0.096<br />
-0 .411<br />
0.0343<br />
-0.0054<br />
-0.2385<br />
. Cont{nrrecl<br />
o\
Appendlx IV (Conrtnued)<br />
Mean crosg producÈs<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
covarlânce<br />
Year<br />
Group/yr.<br />
Slre/g¡sup/y¡.<br />
Dam/ el¡e/group/yr.<br />
Progeny/dam / eLre/<br />
group/yr.<br />
Cov,<br />
D.F.<br />
6<br />
13<br />
269<br />
368<br />
798<br />
Lo<strong>in</strong> far<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
Z han wt.<br />
-T.292<br />
-0.120<br />
-0 .07 4<br />
-0.054<br />
-0.020<br />
-0 .003<br />
Lo<strong>in</strong> fat<br />
<strong>and</strong> ham<br />
surface area<br />
o.776<br />
0.165<br />
-0.07 4<br />
-0.055<br />
-0 .031<br />
-0.003<br />
Loln fat<br />
<strong>and</strong> 7"<br />
pred, y1e1d<br />
-2.L04<br />
-0.719<br />
-0.278<br />
-0.201<br />
-0.130<br />
-0.013<br />
Loln fat<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
aPe<br />
-8.803<br />
-3.551<br />
-0. 250<br />
-0.103<br />
-0.201<br />
-0 .033<br />
ToEal fat<br />
<strong>and</strong> 1o1n<br />
eve area<br />
-7.228<br />
-0.345<br />
-0.062<br />
-0.066<br />
-0 .016<br />
0.003<br />
CovO<br />
Cov"<br />
-0.016<br />
-0 .020<br />
-0 .012<br />
-0 .031<br />
-0.034<br />
-0.130<br />
0.048<br />
-0.201<br />
-0.024<br />
-0.016<br />
Contlnued<br />
\.1<br />
O
^Appendix IV (Cont<strong>in</strong>ued)<br />
Mea4 cross products<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
covarfance<br />
Year<br />
Group/yr.<br />
SLre/ grç¡p/y¡.<br />
Dam/sfte/ Eroup /yr .<br />
Progeny/dam/s 1re /<br />
group /yr .<br />
Cov,<br />
CovO<br />
Cov"<br />
D. F.<br />
6<br />
13<br />
269<br />
368<br />
798<br />
Total fat<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
grade lndex<br />
-3. 341<br />
-5.505<br />
-L.282<br />
-0.825<br />
-0.618<br />
-0 .0 86<br />
-0 .100<br />
-0.618<br />
ToEal fat<br />
<strong>and</strong>, 7"<br />
ham ¡+t.<br />
Toral fat<br />
<strong>and</strong> har¡<br />
surface area<br />
4 .116 _11 .409<br />
0, 868 _2,505<br />
-0.227 _o .298<br />
-0.137 _0.t42<br />
-0.058 _0 .098<br />
-0.016 -0 .030<br />
-0.038 _o .022<br />
-0.058 _0.098<br />
Total fat<br />
<strong>and</strong> 7.<br />
pred. yleld<br />
-9.586<br />
-4.496<br />
-0 .9l.B<br />
-0.589<br />
-0. 387<br />
-0 .060<br />
-0.098<br />
-0.387<br />
Total fat<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
aEe<br />
-7 .064<br />
-)1 101<br />
-I .75tl<br />
-0.455<br />
-0 .81 7<br />
-0.276<br />
0.175<br />
-0.817
Appendlx fV (Conc<strong>in</strong>ued)<br />
Mean cross products<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
covarlance<br />
D.F,<br />
Lo<strong>in</strong> eye area<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
grade lndex<br />
Loln eye area<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
% ham q't.<br />
Lo<strong>in</strong> eye area<br />
<strong>and</strong> han<br />
su¡face area<br />
Loln eye area<br />
anð "l<br />
pred. yield<br />
Loln eye area<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
age<br />
Year<br />
6<br />
3.043<br />
-1.815<br />
14.011<br />
76.307<br />
7L.6tL<br />
Group/yr.<br />
13<br />
-0 .L7 4<br />
1.339<br />
4.3L2<br />
5 .592<br />
7t'raA<br />
SLre/ gtoup/yr.<br />
269<br />
0.337<br />
0.167<br />
0. 575<br />
0.957<br />
O.B89<br />
Dam/ sLre/ group /yr .<br />
368<br />
0.576<br />
0.184<br />
0 .360<br />
o.796<br />
0.497<br />
Progeny/dam / s1-re/<br />
group/yr.<br />
798<br />
0.134<br />
0.045<br />
0.150<br />
0.331<br />
-0.117<br />
Covr'<br />
-0.063<br />
-0.008<br />
0.037<br />
0.018<br />
0 .060<br />
Cov'<br />
0.2r4<br />
0.067<br />
0.102<br />
0.225<br />
0.298<br />
Cov"<br />
0.l_34<br />
0.045<br />
0.150<br />
0. 331<br />
-0.117<br />
. Contlnuecl<br />
! l.J
Appendix IV (Conctnued)<br />
Mean crosà products<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
covarlance<br />
Year<br />
Group/yr.<br />
SLre/ group/yr.<br />
Dan/ elre/ group/yr ,<br />
Progeny/dan /el¡e/<br />
group /yr.<br />
Cov,<br />
D. F.<br />
6<br />
13<br />
269<br />
368<br />
198<br />
Grade lndex<br />
<strong>and</strong> Z ham<br />
wefght<br />
21.545<br />
-8.509<br />
r.654<br />
0.830<br />
0.249<br />
0.149<br />
Grade lndex<br />
<strong>and</strong> ham surface<br />
area<br />
Grade lndex<br />
<strong>and</strong> Z pred.<br />
yleld<br />
-22.901 8.823<br />
6.578 14.720<br />
r.647 5,633<br />
1.336 3.951<br />
0.595 2.384<br />
0.039 0.29L<br />
Grade lndex<br />
<strong>and</strong>'age<br />
-I8.292<br />
86.524<br />
6.24L<br />
-4 .001<br />
0.610<br />
2.239<br />
Z Ham welght<br />
<strong>and</strong> ham<br />
surface area<br />
-L02.382<br />
-22.326<br />
o.284<br />
0.039<br />
-0.376<br />
0.037<br />
CovO<br />
0.281<br />
0.359 0.760<br />
-2.234<br />
0. 201<br />
Cov--<br />
0.249<br />
0.s95 2.384<br />
0.6r 0<br />
-0.376<br />
. ContLnued<br />
!<br />
tt
Àppendlx IV (Contlnued)<br />
Mean cross products<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
covarlance<br />
D.F.<br />
% Ham welght<br />
<strong>and</strong> %<br />
pred. yleld<br />
% Ham welght<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
age<br />
Ham surface<br />
area <strong>and</strong> Z<br />
pred. yleld<br />
Ham surface<br />
area <strong>and</strong><br />
age<br />
7. Pred. yleld<br />
<strong>and</strong><br />
age<br />
Year<br />
Group/yr.<br />
SLre/gtoup/yr.<br />
Dam/ s|re/ group/yr,<br />
Progeny/darn /sl:e/<br />
group/yr.<br />
6<br />
13<br />
269<br />
368<br />
798<br />
-28.477<br />
-L6.435<br />
T.347<br />
0.873<br />
0. 250<br />
-7L664<br />
-25.617<br />
r.922<br />
0.643<br />
0 .443<br />
171.524<br />
50.019<br />
4.72L<br />
3.L30<br />
2.L72<br />
84.980<br />
247 .27_1<br />
7.053<br />
2 .600<br />
1.839<br />
168 .7 2r<br />
257 .900<br />
Lr.292<br />
3. 366<br />
3.555<br />
coys<br />
0 .075<br />
0.254<br />
o.293<br />
0.884<br />
r.622<br />
Cov'<br />
0,302<br />
0.097<br />
0 .464<br />
0. 367<br />
-0.092<br />
Cov*<br />
0.250<br />
0 .443<br />
2.77 2<br />
1.839<br />
3.555<br />
!
75<br />
Appendix V. Table <strong>of</strong> differentials<br />
for carcass grade índex<br />
Carcass weight (lb)<br />
Backfat <strong>in</strong>. 90<br />
L24<br />
l-25<br />
l-29<br />
130<br />
r39<br />
L40 150<br />
r49 159<br />
160 L70<br />
769 180<br />
181<br />
195<br />
796 Ridg<strong>and</strong><br />
l<strong>in</strong>g<br />
over<br />
- -1.9<br />
2.0-2.I<br />
2.2-2.3<br />
2.4-2.5<br />
B7<br />
B7<br />
B7<br />
87<br />
105<br />
103<br />
L02<br />
100<br />
109 110<br />
LO7 109<br />
105 707<br />
103 10s<br />
LL2 IL2<br />
110 LLz<br />
109 110<br />
r07 109<br />
LL2<br />
LL2<br />
110<br />
109<br />
9L<br />
9I<br />
91<br />
9T<br />
85<br />
85<br />
85<br />
B5<br />
67<br />
67<br />
67<br />
67<br />
2.6-2 "7<br />
B7<br />
9B<br />
L02 103<br />
r05 L07<br />
L07<br />
9L<br />
85<br />
67<br />
)Q_10<br />
3.0-3.1<br />
87<br />
B7<br />
97<br />
95<br />
100 L02<br />
98 100<br />
103 105<br />
LOz 103<br />
105<br />
103<br />
9T<br />
91<br />
Q(<br />
UJ<br />
B5<br />
67<br />
67<br />
3.2-3 .3<br />
B7<br />
92<br />
97 98<br />
100 r02<br />
ro2<br />
91<br />
85<br />
67<br />
3 .4-3. s<br />
3 .6-3.7<br />
87<br />
B7<br />
B8<br />
B8<br />
95 97<br />
92 95<br />
98 100<br />
97 98<br />
100<br />
9B<br />
9I<br />
9T<br />
B5<br />
85<br />
67<br />
67<br />
3. B-3.9<br />
4.0-4.L<br />
4.2-4.3<br />
87<br />
B7<br />
B7<br />
BB<br />
B8<br />
8B<br />
BB 92<br />
BB 88<br />
88 BB<br />
9s 97<br />
92 95<br />
BB 92<br />
97<br />
95<br />
92<br />
9L<br />
B7<br />
B7<br />
B5<br />
B2<br />
B2<br />
67<br />
67<br />
67<br />
4.4- +<br />
87<br />
B8<br />
88 88<br />
BB BB<br />
BB<br />
B7<br />
B2<br />
67
76<br />
Appendix VI. Adjustment table for age to market weíght<br />
Body wÈ.<br />
(ke)<br />
75<br />
76<br />
77<br />
78<br />
79<br />
80<br />
B1<br />
B2<br />
B3<br />
B4<br />
B5<br />
86<br />
B7<br />
8B<br />
89<br />
90<br />
91<br />
92<br />
93<br />
94<br />
95<br />
96<br />
97<br />
9B<br />
99<br />
100<br />
101<br />
702<br />
103<br />
104<br />
105<br />
155<br />
Ls4<br />
153<br />
L52<br />
151<br />
150<br />
L4B<br />
r47<br />
746<br />
L46<br />
L4s<br />
L44<br />
143<br />
L42<br />
141<br />
140<br />
139<br />
138<br />
l-37<br />
L37<br />
136<br />
135<br />
134<br />
134<br />
133<br />
r32<br />
131<br />
131<br />
r30<br />
130<br />
l-29<br />
159 l_67<br />
L56 L59<br />
r55 L57<br />
L54 156<br />
153 155<br />
r52 l.54<br />
151 153<br />
150 r52<br />
148 151<br />
148 150<br />
147 L49<br />
746 748<br />
L45 147<br />
L44 L46<br />
L43 145<br />
r42 744<br />
L4I L43<br />
r40 L42<br />
139 r4L<br />
139 ]-4L<br />
138 140<br />
137 139<br />
136 138<br />
136 138<br />
135 L37<br />
134 136<br />
133 135<br />
133 135<br />
132 L34<br />
r32 133<br />
131 732<br />
163 165<br />
L6L 163<br />
160 L62<br />
158 161<br />
L57 L59<br />
156 rs8<br />
155 L57<br />
754 156<br />
153 155<br />
L52 L54<br />
r51 153<br />
150 752<br />
L49 151<br />
148 1s0<br />
L47 L49<br />
L46 148<br />
r4s L47<br />
L44 l-46<br />
L43 L45<br />
r43 r4s<br />
L42 r44<br />
L41 L43<br />
140 142<br />
139 L4L<br />
138 L40<br />
138 L40<br />
L37 139<br />
L37 139<br />
136 138<br />
135 r37<br />
L34 L36<br />
usted<br />
L67 t69<br />
165 l-67<br />
L64 ]66<br />
L63 165<br />
L62 L64<br />
160 163<br />
159 L62<br />
r5B 160<br />
\57 L59<br />
156 158<br />
155 L57<br />
L54 156<br />
153 155<br />
r52 r54<br />
151 153<br />
150 152<br />
L49 151<br />
148 150<br />
1,47 L49<br />
L46 I4B<br />
L46 r47<br />
r45 L46<br />
144 l-46<br />
L43 A45<br />
L42 744<br />
142 L44<br />
L4L 143<br />
140 L42<br />
L40 l4r<br />
139 ]'4]-<br />
138 140<br />
L7I L74<br />
L69 L77<br />
168 I70<br />
167 L69<br />
L66 168<br />
L65 L67<br />
L64 166<br />
163 l-65<br />
I6L L64<br />
160 L62<br />
159 r6L<br />
158 160<br />
L57 159<br />
156 158<br />
155 L57<br />
r54 L56<br />
153 1s5<br />
L52 L54<br />
151 153<br />
150 L52<br />
1"49 151<br />
r4B 150<br />
148 150<br />
747 L49<br />
146 748<br />
146 L4B<br />
r45 L47<br />
144 L46<br />
L43 L4s<br />
L42 L44<br />
L4L L43<br />
L76 r78<br />
L75 I77<br />
L72 L76<br />
L7L L73<br />
L70 I72<br />
L69 L7L<br />
168 L70<br />
L67 169<br />
L66 168<br />
165 l-67<br />
163 L66<br />
L62 L64<br />
161 163<br />
160 L62<br />
159 L6r<br />
r5B 160<br />
L57 159<br />
156 158<br />
155 L57<br />
r54 156<br />
153 155<br />
L52 754<br />
r52 L54<br />
151 r53<br />
r50 L52<br />
L49 151<br />
L49 1s0<br />
148 150<br />
L47 L49<br />
L46 148<br />
L4s r47<br />
Cont<strong>in</strong>ued.
77<br />
Appendix VI.<br />
(Cont<strong>in</strong>ued)<br />
Body wt.<br />
(kg)<br />
75<br />
76<br />
77<br />
78<br />
79<br />
BO<br />
BI<br />
82<br />
OJ<br />
B4<br />
B5<br />
B6<br />
B7<br />
B8<br />
B9<br />
90<br />
91<br />
92<br />
93<br />
94<br />
9s<br />
96<br />
97<br />
98<br />
99<br />
100<br />
101<br />
LO2<br />
103<br />
104<br />
105<br />
180 rB2 IB4 186 188<br />
t79 181 183 185 787<br />
I7B 1BO 182 T84 186<br />
L77 L79 1Bl 183 rB5<br />
r75 L77 779 181 183<br />
773 t76 r78 180 tB2<br />
L72 r74 L77 L79 181<br />
L7l- r73 L75 L78 180<br />
L70 L72 r74 L76 L79<br />
169 L7L L73 175 I77<br />
168 L70 772 L74 176<br />
166 168 I70 I72 L74<br />
165 T67 L69 l-7L L73<br />
L64 L66 168 L70 L72<br />
L63 165 L67 L69 L77<br />
162 L64 166 168 r70<br />
161 L63 165 l.67 ],69<br />
160 L62 764 L66 168<br />
159 161 163 L65 t67<br />
1s8 160 162 l.64 ]-66<br />
r57 159 161 163 ]'65<br />
156 ls8 160 L62 L64<br />
156 158 159 161 163<br />
155 L57 r59 160 L62<br />
r54 156 rs8 159 161<br />
153 155 L57 159 160<br />
t52 r54 156 158 160<br />
151 153 155 r57 159<br />
150 L52 154 156 158<br />
150 151 153 155 l-57<br />
749 1s1 1s2 Ls4 756<br />
Adjusted age <strong>in</strong> days<br />
190 l-92 r94<br />
189 191 L93<br />
188 190 L92<br />
L87 189 L9T<br />
185 IB7 189<br />
184 186 lBB<br />
183 185 LB7<br />
L82 rB4 186<br />
181 183 185<br />
r79 181 183<br />
L78 lBO IB2<br />
L76 L7B TBI<br />
L75 r77 T79<br />
T74 L76 L7B<br />
L73 r75 L77<br />
!72 1_74 176<br />
L7L L73 T75<br />
r70 r72 L74<br />
L69 T7L L73<br />
168 L70 172<br />
1"67 l69 L70<br />
166 168 L70<br />
165 t67 L69<br />
L64 166 168<br />
163 165 ]'67<br />
762 L64 L66<br />
L6L 163 165<br />
16r 162 L64<br />
160 161 163<br />
159 161 l-62<br />
158 160 162<br />
L96 198 200<br />
195 l'97 199<br />
L94 796 198<br />
193 195 Lg7<br />
LgL 193 195<br />
190 L92 L94<br />
189 191 193<br />
188 190 L92<br />
LB7 rB9 191<br />
185 rB7 r89<br />
LBî 186 188<br />
183 rB5 L87<br />
rB2 184 186<br />
180 I82 184<br />
r79 181 183<br />
L78 1BO LB2<br />
r77 L79 181<br />
L76 178 180<br />
175 L77 L79<br />
L74 L76 r78<br />
L72 L74 L76<br />
L7L T73 L75<br />
77L L72 L74<br />
L70 L72 173<br />
L69 t7L r72<br />
168 170 L72<br />
L67 L69 L7T<br />
166 168 L70<br />
16s 167 L69<br />
164 L66 168<br />
163 165 767<br />
ContÍnued.
7B<br />
Appendix VI.<br />
(Conr<strong>in</strong>ued)<br />
Body wt.<br />
(ke)<br />
75<br />
76<br />
77<br />
78<br />
79<br />
BO<br />
81<br />
B2<br />
83<br />
' .84<br />
85<br />
86<br />
B7<br />
B8<br />
B9<br />
90<br />
91<br />
92<br />
93<br />
94<br />
9s<br />
96<br />
97<br />
9B<br />
99<br />
r00<br />
101<br />
L02<br />
103<br />
104<br />
105<br />
202 204<br />
20L 203<br />
200 202<br />
L99 207<br />
L97 199<br />
L96 198<br />
195 L97<br />
L94 L96<br />
193 195<br />
191 193<br />
190 L92<br />
189 191<br />
1BB 190<br />
186 188<br />
185 r87<br />
L84 186<br />
183 185<br />
782 184<br />
181 183<br />
180 t_Bz<br />
I78 180<br />
777 L79<br />
176 r7B<br />
L75 l-77<br />
I74 l-76<br />
t73 r75<br />
L73 L74<br />
L72 L74<br />
L7T L73<br />
L70 L72<br />
t69 L7L<br />
206<br />
205<br />
204<br />
203<br />
207<br />
200<br />
l99<br />
19B<br />
L97<br />
195<br />
L94<br />
193<br />
L92<br />
190<br />
189<br />
lBB<br />
l-87<br />
186<br />
184<br />
184<br />
182<br />
181<br />
180<br />
l-79<br />
178<br />
t77<br />
L76<br />
L75<br />
175<br />
l-74<br />
l-73<br />
Adiusted a<br />
208 2lL0<br />
207 209<br />
206 208<br />
205 207<br />
203 205<br />
202 204<br />
20L 203<br />
20a 202<br />
r99 20L<br />
L97 A99<br />
796 198<br />
195 r97<br />
794 L96<br />
L92 L94<br />
191 193<br />
190 792<br />
189 191<br />
1BB 190<br />
186 1BB<br />
185 787<br />
184 186<br />
183 185<br />
182 rB4<br />
181 rB3<br />
180 l-82<br />
L79 181<br />
L78 180<br />
177 L79<br />
L76 L7B<br />
776 177<br />
L75 L76<br />
272<br />
277<br />
2LO<br />
209<br />
207<br />
206<br />
205<br />
204<br />
203<br />
20L<br />
200<br />
L99<br />
198<br />
L96<br />
195<br />
L94<br />
193<br />
L92<br />
190<br />
189<br />
1BB<br />
L8l<br />
IB6<br />
185<br />
184<br />
183<br />
r82<br />
1BI<br />
tB0<br />
1,79<br />
t77<br />
<strong>in</strong> da<br />
2L4<br />
21"3<br />
272<br />
2LL<br />
209<br />
208<br />
207<br />
206<br />
205<br />
203<br />
202<br />
20l-<br />
200<br />
198<br />
L97<br />
L96<br />
r95<br />
L94<br />
192<br />
191<br />
190<br />
189<br />
LB7<br />
L87<br />
186<br />
185<br />
184<br />
183<br />
I82<br />
lBl<br />
l-79<br />
2L6 2IB<br />
2L5 2L7<br />
2L4 2L6<br />
2L3 215<br />
zLL 2L3<br />
2L0 272<br />
209 2rr<br />
208 270<br />
207 209<br />
205 207<br />
204 206<br />
203 205<br />
202 204<br />
200 202<br />
L99 20I<br />
r98 200<br />
L97 L99<br />
L96 198<br />
L94 L96<br />
193 195<br />
L92 r94<br />
191 193<br />
189 191<br />
188 190<br />
1BB 189<br />
L87 189<br />
186 TBB<br />
185 rB7<br />
184 186<br />
183 185<br />
181 183<br />
220 222<br />
2L9 22L<br />
2r8 220<br />
2L7 2L9<br />
2L5 277<br />
2t4 216<br />
2L3 2L5<br />
2r2 2L4<br />
zLT 2L3<br />
209 21L<br />
208 2L0<br />
207 209<br />
206 208<br />
204 206<br />
203 205<br />
202 204<br />
20L 203<br />
200 202<br />
198 200<br />
r97 L99<br />
L96 198<br />
195 L97<br />
193 195<br />
L92 r94<br />
191 193<br />
190 L92<br />
189 LgL<br />
189 190<br />
1BB 190<br />
LB7 189<br />
r85 l-87<br />
Cont<strong>in</strong>ued.
79<br />
Appendix<br />
VI.<br />
(Cont<strong>in</strong>ued)<br />
Body wt.<br />
(ke)<br />
75<br />
76<br />
77<br />
7B<br />
79<br />
BO<br />
B1<br />
B2<br />
OJ<br />
B4<br />
B5<br />
B6<br />
B7<br />
BB<br />
B9<br />
90<br />
9L<br />
92<br />
93<br />
94<br />
95<br />
96<br />
97<br />
9B<br />
99<br />
100<br />
101<br />
L02<br />
103<br />
104<br />
105<br />
Adjusted age <strong>in</strong> days<br />
224 226 228 230 232 234 236 238<br />
223 225 227 229 23r 233 235 237<br />
222 224 226 228 230 232 234 236<br />
22I 223 225 227 229 237 233 235<br />
2L9 22L 223 225 227 229 23I 233<br />
2LB 220 222 224 226 228 230 .232<br />
277 2Ig 22L 223 225 227 22g 23L<br />
2L6 zLB 220 222 224 226 228 230<br />
2L5 2L7 279 22L 223 225 227 229<br />
2l-3 2L5 2L7 2L9 22L 223 225 227<br />
2L2 2I4 2L6 2IB 220 222 224 226<br />
27L 2L3 2L5 2L7 2L9 22L 223 225<br />
2L0 2L2 274 2L6 zLB 220 222 224<br />
208 zLO 2L2 2L4 2L6 zLB 220 222<br />
207 209 zIL 2L3 2L5 2L7 2L9 22I<br />
206 208 2I0 2L2 214 2l:6 2LB 220<br />
205 207 209 2LI 2L3 2l-5 2L7 2Lg<br />
204 206 208 2]I0 2L2 2L4 2L6 zLB<br />
202 204 206 208 2IO 2L2 2L4 216<br />
20L 203 205 207 209 zLL 2L3 2L5<br />
200 202 204 206 208 2I0 2L2 2I4<br />
L99 20I 203 205 207 209 2LL 2L3<br />
I97 L99 20L 203 205 207 209 2LL<br />
196 r9B 200 202 204 206 208 2LO<br />
195 197 199 20\ 203 205 207 2og<br />
L94 L96 198 200 202 204 206 208<br />
193 195 r97 r99 20L 203 205 207<br />
191 193 195 r97 L99 zOL 203 205<br />
191 L92 L94 L96 198 2OO 202 204<br />
191 191 193 195 r97 r99 20:- 203<br />
rB9 191 L92 r94 L96 r9B 200 202