Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:00:51.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relative performance and carcass characteristics of pigs sired by Hampshire and Large White boars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

W. C. Smith ,
J. N. Barkes  and
H. M. Tonks
W. C. Smith
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU
J. N. Barkes
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU
H. M. Tonks
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU
Get access

Summary

Hampshire and Large White crosses were compared with purebred Large White pigs for litterproduction and post-weaning performance. Crossbreeding did not influence either litter size or total litter weight at birth but crossbred litters had 14 % more pigs at weaning than purebred litters. Total litter weight at weaning was 13 % greater i n crossbred litters. In two post-weaning trials (23 to 90 kg live weight), where feeding was either ad libitum or restricted according to live weight, Hampshire crosses had advantages over Large Whites in rate and efficiency of gain and killing-out percentage. The cross-breds had shorter carcasses but a greater eye-muscle area due primarily to a greater depth of lean in the muscle. All fat depth measurements indicated that the crossbreds were not significantly leaner than the purebreds and this was confirmed in the restricted trial when the carcasses were subjected to physical and chemical dissection. Hampshire carcasses did have a lower bone content than those of the purebreds, but crossbreeding did not influence joint proportions or lean distribution in the carcass.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , August 1973 , pp. 59 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1973

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

Adam, J. L. and Smith, W. C. 1966. The use of sample joints in predicting the carcass composition of pigs slaughtered at three weights. Anim. Prod. 8: 85–94.Google Scholar
Frape, D. L., Wilkinson, J., Chubb, L. G. and Wolf, K. L. 1970. A growth and economy comparison of two crosses of pigs when fed ad libitum and to a scale and slaughtered at two weights. Anim. Prod. 12: 307–322.Google Scholar
King, J. W. B. 1966. The place of new breeds. In Breeding for Pig Improvement. Proc. Conf. Pig Industry Development Authority, London.Google Scholar
King, J. W. B. 1968. [The hybridization of pigs.] Stobarstvo 22: 485–489.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1970. Hampshire pigs—removal of controls. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Mudd, A. J., Smith, W. C. and Armstrong, D. G. 1969. The retention ofcertain minerals in pigs from birth to 90 kg live-weight. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 73:181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. C., Adam, J. L. and Tonks, H. M. 1963. The supplementation of pig diets with oleandomycin. Anim. Prod. 5: 201–208.Google Scholar
Smith, W. C., Barkes, J. N. and Tonks, H. M. 1968. Crossbreeding studies with Hampshire boars. Anim. Prod. 10: 244–245 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Smith, W. C., Tonks, H. M. and Lawrence, N. 1967. A note on the use of back rasher ratios as predictors of lean percentage in pigs of bacon weight. Anim. Prod. 9: 255–258.Google Scholar