HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bereskin, B. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Bereskin, B.

Comparing Own with Sib Performance for Testing Boars¹

Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland 20705

Abstract

The usefulness of slaughter sibs for evaluating the breeding value of boars at central testing stations was examined theoretically on the basis of expected genetic gains in a conceptual population. Test groups consisted of either four boars, three boars and one barrow, or two of each, from a litter. Genetic gains in the population were estimated for selection based on traits in either one or two slaughter sibs alone or in combination with the correlated trait in the test boar. These estimates were compared with gains expected from selection based only on the correlated trait in the boar. The genetic correlation between the trait in the slaughter sibs and that in the test boar was the most critical factor affecting comparative genetic gains. In general, a higher genetic correlation reduced the value of slaughter sibs for promoting faster genetic gains.

The usefulness of slaughter sibs was examined for percent lean cuts and meat quality. For percent lean cuts, a definite disadvantage (up to 37%) in genetic gains was shown when relying wholly on slaughter sib data. Combined with ultrasonic estimates in the boar, slaughter sib data provided only marginal benefits (up to 7%) over estimates in the boar alone. For meat quality, genetic gains using slaughter sib data alone, compared with estimates in the boar, such as from muscle biopsies, ranged from a 7% advantage to a 21% disadvantage. Combining estimates from both sources gave up to a 21% advantage over estimates from the boar alone. However, evaluating meat quality remains largely subjective, with many attendant difficulties which also need to be considered.

¹ The author acknowledges the useful suggestions of H. W. Norton, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801; H. O. Hetzer, A.R.S., U.S.D.A. (retired), Beltsville, Md.; and O. W. Robison, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27607.

² Nonruminant Nutrition Laboratory.