Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:22:42.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of ‘on-farm’ and station testing in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. J. Roberts  and
M. K. Curran
D. J. Roberts
Affiliation:
Wye College, University of London, Ashford, Kent TN25 5AH
M. K. Curran
Affiliation:
Wye College, University of London, Ashford, Kent TN25 5AH
Get access

Abstract

Data were extracted from Meat and Livestock Commission records from 44 herds with 392 progeny-tested sires in both farm and station environments. The farm data contained 4182 and 17 251 male and female progeny respectively, and the station data 2982 and 1490 male and female progeny respectively. Both sets of data were adjusted separately for the effects of month of test within sex. The farm data were also corrected to a constant end-of-test-weight corresponding to that at the station. Comparisons were made between both different and the same sexes in the two environments. Phenotypic correlations between a simple index measure in both environments ranged from +0·20 (farm females:station males) to +0·30 (farm females:station females). Genetic correlations between similar traits ranged from –018 (weight/age, farm males:station females) to +081 (simple index, farm males:station females). The correlations between female farm progeny and station male progeny were generally lower than for any other comparisons.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , December 1981 , pp. 291 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bampton, P. R. 1975. Genetic and phenotypic relationships between farm and central performance testing in pigs. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Lond.Google Scholar
Bampton, P. R., Curran, M. K. and Kempson, R. E. 1977. A comparison of ‘on-farm’ and station testing in pigs. Anim. Prod. 25: 83–94.Google Scholar
King, J. W. B. 1955. The use of testing stations for pig improvement. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 23: 347–356.Google Scholar
Roberts, D. J. 1979. The estimation of the relative genetic merit of pigs in different environmental conditions. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Lond.Google Scholar
Smith, D. H. 1972. Relationship between on-farm testing and central station testing under British conditions. Proc. Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod., 23rd Meet. Pig Study Commn, Verona.Google Scholar
Smith, C. and Ross, G. J. S. 1965. Genetic parameters of British Landrace bacon pigs. Anim. Prod. 7: 291–301.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1967. Statistical Methods. 6th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, la.Google Scholar
Standal, N. 1977. Studies on breeding and selection schemes in pigs. VI. Correlations between breeding values estimated from station test and on-farm-test data. Ada. Agric. scand. 27: 138–144.Google Scholar
Standal, N. and Moen, R. A. 1971. Combining information from test stations and farms when estimating the breeding value of boars. Proc. Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod., Versailles.Google Scholar
Weniger, J. H., Glodek, P., Mennerich, A. and Schmidt, L. 1967. [Investigation of the method and application of the ultrasonic technique in the performance testing of pigs.] Bayer. landw. Jb. 44: 842–874.Google Scholar