J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J. Anim Sci. 1971. 32:413-419.
© 1971 American Society of Animal Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bereskin, B.
Right arrow Articles by Hazel, L. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bereskin, B.
Right arrow Articles by Hazel, L. N.

Carcass Traits of Purebred Durocs and Yorkshires and their Crosses1

B. Bereskin2, C. E. Shelby2, 3, and L. N. Hazel4

U. S. Department of Agriculture and Iowa State University, Ames 50010

Abstract

The primary basis for the popularity of crossbreds in commercial pork production is the advantage of crossbreds over the straightbred mid-parental values. This crossbred advantage, or (positive) heterosis, generally has been noted for traits associated with "mothering ability" of crossbred females. These traits include numbers and weights of pigs in a litter at birth and at weaning. Also, survival rate and general vigor of crossbred pigs generally have reflected this heterosis effect. Other traits, such as post-weaning growth rate, have shown lesser degrees of crossbred advantage. Carcass traits of crossbreds usually have equalled mid-parental values, indicating little, if any, heterosis (Fredeen, 1958).

An experiment to evaluate further the effects of crossing the Duroc and Yorkshire breeds was initiated at the Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station in 1964.

Footnotes

1 Appreciation is expressed to H. O. Hetzer, Animal Science Research Division. A.R.S., Beltsville, Maryland, H. W. Norton, University of Illinois, Urbana, and L. A. Swiger, Ohio State University, Columbus, for detailed suggestions on the manuscript. Comments by I. T. Omtvedt, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, and statistical advice by D. F. Cox, suggestions by J. L. Lush, and data collection and preparation by Jim Matthews, all of Iowa State University, Ames, also are acknowledged.

2 Swine Research Branch. Animal Science Research Division, A.R.S., Beltsville, Maryland 20705.

3 Present address: Animal Science Research Division, A.R.S., U.S.D.A., Kentucky State College, Frankfort.

4 Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1971 by the American Society of Animal Science.