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


     


J. Anim Sci. 1983. 56:1306-1314.
© 1983 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 Smith, C.
Right arrow Articles by Bennett, G. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Smith, C.
Right arrow Articles by Bennett, G. L.

Expected Relative Responses to Selection for Alternative Measures of Life Cycle Economic Efficiency of Pork Production1

C. Smith2, G. E. Dickerson3, M. W. Tess4 and G. L. Bennett5

US Department of Agriculture and University of Nebraska, Lincoln 68583-0908

Abstract

Relative genetic responses to selection for alternative measures of economic efficiency of pork production were examined. The analysis was based on results from a deterministic bio-economic model of lifecycle pork production. Alternative aggregate breeding values considered were based on cost ($)/unit of live weight or of carcass output lean for for different production systems and for different breeding roles of the selected stocks. For cost/unit of lean, changes in leanness (or fatness) dominated the index. For cost/unit of live weight, however, no one trait dominated the index, and changes in growth and reproductive traits as well as the breeding role of the stock (purebred, maternal or paternal) were important in defining selection objectives. Management and production systems were less important than breeding role for cost/unit live weight output, except that importance of growth rate was increased by marketing at the mean weight reached at a fixed age rather than at a fixed weight irrespective of age. Implications of these results for goals and systems of pig improvement are discussed.


Footnotes

1 Published as Paper No. 6951, Journal Ser., Nebraska Agr. Exp. Sta., Lincoln.

2 On leave, Animal Breeding Research Organization, Edinburgh, Scotland.

3 Research Geneticist, Roman L. Hruska US Meat Animal Research Center, ARS, USDA, 225 Marvel Bakel Hall, Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln 68583-0908.

4 Graduate Assistant, Dept. of Anim. Sci., Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln. Present address: Dept. of Anim. Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh 27650.

5 Post-doctoral Research Associate, Dept. of Anim. Sci., Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln. Supported by Cooperative Agreement No. 3090-20372-013A of Agr. Res. Service, USDA, and Univ. of Nebraska. Present address: Ruakura Anim. Res. Sta., Ministry of Agr. and Fisheries, Hamilton, New Zealand.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1983 by the American Society of Animal Science.