Crossbreeding for
the Production of
Market Hogs
BY: V.G. Argaῆosa
Reported by :
Algeron J. Deterala
MSA Animal Science
Stu...
Introduction
O Experts all over the world recommend
crossbreeding for the production of market
hogs.
O This technology res...
Objective
O This paper aims to synthesize the results
of cooperative studies between the
University of the Philippines Los...
Results
O The results of these studies comparing
the production performance of the
imported pigs were summarized by
Argaῆo...
O They concluded that breeding animals
should be tested and selected under the
conditions where their progenies are
expect...
Table 1.Production Performance of Purebred
Yorkshire, Landrace and Duroc Gilts and
Boars
(Argañosa et al. 1986)
Parameters...
Table 2.Production Performance of Gilts
belonging to Different breed-groups
(Napoles et al.1986)
Parameters
Breed-group1
P...
Table 3.Production Performance of Boars
belonging to Different breed-groups
(Napoles et al.1986)
Parameters Purebred Pietr...
Table 4.The Reproductive Performance of
Yorkshire, Landrace and Duroc Breeds
(Siagian et al. 1986)
Parameters Yorkshire La...
Table 5.The Reproductive Performance of
Sows belonging to different Breeds
(Argañosa et al. 1988)
Parameters Purebred Piet...
Table 6.The Reproductive Performance of
Sows belonging to Different Breed Groups
(Argañosa et al. 1991)
Parameters Lndrac
...
Table 7.The Reproductive Performance of
Sows from Different breed groups in Farm A
(Somchai,1992)
LL YY LY YL L(LY) Y(LY) ...
Table 8.The Reproductive Performance of
Sows from the Different breed groups in
Farm B (Somchai,1992)
Parameters
LL YY LY ...
Table 9.The Effects of Breed of Sows on the
different reproductive traits in Farm A
(Somchai. 1992)
Parameters
Breed of So...
Table 10.The Effects of Breed of Sows on the
different reproductive traits in Farm B
(Somchai. 1992)
Parameters
Breed of S...
Table 11. The effects of breed of boar on the
different reproductive traits in Farm A
(Somchai. 1992)
Parameters
Breed of ...
Table 12. The effects of breed of boar on the
different reproductive traits in Farm B
(Somchai. 1992)
Parameters
Breed of ...
Table 13. Production performance of barrows and
gilts from two breed groups of market hogs
(Somchai,1992)
(Somchai.1992)
P...
Table 14.Percentage Heterosis in selected
traits realized in Crossbred (Arganosa et
al.1991)
Traits
Group
Lndrce x
Yorkshi...
Table 15.Percentage heterosis in selected
traits realized in F1 sows (Somchai,1992)
Traits Farm A Farm B
Litter size at bi...
Summary
O The average reproductive and productive
performance of purebred Landrace,
Yorkshire, Duroc, and Peitrain and
cro...
1. Imported purebred Landrace, Yorkshire,
Duroc and Petrain and their purebred
and crossbred offspring did not perform
as ...
4. The crossbred Landrace x Yorkshire or
Yorkshire x Landrace sows mated to either
parental breed or terminal sires perfor...
Literature Cited
O ARBOLEDA,C.R. VG.
ARGAÑOSA,PARKER,A.L.LAMBIO,OA,PALAD,
FF PENALBA,OL BONDOC and N.A. CARIGMA
1985a Phil...
O ARGAÑOSA VG.JV SERRANO,JR and RP
REYES 1979b, Production performance of
imported Landrace,Welsh,Yorkshire and synthetic
...
O ARGAÑOSA
VG,PH.SIAGIAN,AG./AQUINO, CC
LOPEZ and AL DE GUZMAN 1986.
Productive performance of Yorkshire,
Landrace and Dur...
O ARGAÑOSA VG.TS SAN JOSE, DMT
MATA,JV SERRANO,JR and RP REYES
1979a. The Reproduction performance
of four imported breeds...
O RIGOR,EM,and RC. FAJARDO 1967.
The Performance of Large white under
Los Baños conditions.Phil.Agr.51 (3) 206-
210.
O RIG...
O SOMCHAI ,ORANKANOK
1992.Performance of purebred and
reciprocal crossbreed Landrace and
Yorkshire sows from two commercia...
Reference
O The Philippine Agriculturist Volume 77
no.1
pages 31-45.
Thank you!!
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Crossbreeding for the production of market hogs

127

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
127
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Crossbreeding refers to the crossing of two different breeds or lines of animals. It is used in livestock production to take advantage of heterosis (sometimes called hybrid vigour) and complementarity.
  • Progenies- Offsprings
  • The Yorkshire breed is white in color, with erect ears. Yorkshires are the most recordedbreed in the United States and Canada. Yorkshire are popular because of their muscular, lowback fat, high percent lean carcasses. More importantly, Yorkshires are durable, sound hog that are excellent mothers. Yorkshires are known as ìthe mother breedî because of theoutstanding milking and mothering abilities.
  • Heterosis hybrid vigor
  • Transcript of "Crossbreeding for the production of market hogs"

    1. 1. Crossbreeding for the Production of Market Hogs BY: V.G. Argaῆosa Reported by : Algeron J. Deterala MSA Animal Science Student
    2. 2. Introduction O Experts all over the world recommend crossbreeding for the production of market hogs. O This technology resulted in the production of the so-called “hybrid pigs” many of which have been introduce to the Philippines. O Landrace, Large White, Duroc, Peitrain and many other standard breeds have also been imported from other countries.
    3. 3. Objective O This paper aims to synthesize the results of cooperative studies between the University of the Philippines Los Baῆos and Non-government organizations on the productive and reproductive performance of purebred pigs and their crosses. O The available information may be used in the development of sound swine breeding programs specific for the Philippines.
    4. 4. Results O The results of these studies comparing the production performance of the imported pigs were summarized by Argaῆosa et al.(1980). O They reported that no two breeds did miserably poor while many of these animals had better average performance in some production traits than the same breed evaluated in other countries.
    5. 5. O They concluded that breeding animals should be tested and selected under the conditions where their progenies are expected to perform.
    6. 6. Table 1.Production Performance of Purebred Yorkshire, Landrace and Duroc Gilts and Boars (Argañosa et al. 1986) Parameters Breed (Gilts)1 Breed (Boars) Yorkshire Landrace Duroc Yorkshire Landrace Duroc No. of Animals Initial age, days Initial weight, kg Final weight, kg Days on test ADG, g Backfat Thickness, cm Feed Efficiency A.D.Feed Intake, kg Adjusted 180-day wt2, kg 3187 84b 26.1b 90.6a 98b 670a 2.51a 2.67b 1.71b 89.7 1806 84b 25.8b 90.2b 105a 626a 2.39c 2.68b 1.61c 86.0 1131 89a 26.6a 90.6a 97c 671a 2.40b 2.72a 1.78a 87.9 1882 85b 27.2a 90.7 82a 784a 2.54a 2.41b 1.87a 97.8 1100 85b 26.8b 90.5 89a 727a 2.36c 2.48a 1.79c 93.6 881 88a 27.2a 90.6 84b 76.3b 2.45b 2.49a 1.88a 94.8 1 Data from the Gilts and boars were separately analyzed. Any two means in the same row followed by the same letter are not statistically different. 2. Recomputed by the reviewer
    7. 7. Table 2.Production Performance of Gilts belonging to Different breed-groups (Napoles et al.1986) Parameters Breed-group1 Purebred Pietrain crossed with Yorkshire Duroc Pietrain Yorkshire Duroc Hampshir e No. of Animals Initial age, days Initial weight, kg Final weight, kg Days on test ADG, g Backfat Thickness, cm Feed Efficiency A.D.Feed Intake, kg Adjusted 180-day wt2, kg 91 87.4c 27.5a 90.5ab 101.4b 635c 2.49a 2.78a 1.75a 86.3 51 92.3b 27.2ab 90.8a 102.0b 629c 2.35b 2.71a 1.74a 84.1 44 100.8a 27.0b 90.0ab 111.9a 572d 1.97e 2.58b 1.42d 76.2 81 92.3b 27.8a 89.9b 97.0c 694c 2.15cd 2.59b 1.63c 85.5 53 91.1b 27.2ab 90.6ab 93.4c 679a 2.18c 2.56b 1.69b 88.4 182 89.3bc 27.4ab 90.4ab 95.4c 667b 2.11d 2.56b 1.64bc 88.1 1 Any two means in the same row followed by the same letter are not statistically different. 2 Recomputed by the reviewer
    8. 8. Table 3.Production Performance of Boars belonging to Different breed-groups (Napoles et al.1986) Parameters Purebred Pietrain crossed with Yorkshire Duroc Pietrain Yorkshire Duroc Hampshir e No. of Animals Initial age, days Initial weight, kg Final weight, kg Days on test ADG, g Backfat Thickness, cm Feed Efficiency A.D.Feed Intake, kg Adjusted 180-day wt.2, kg 82 87.2d 27.7 90.7 88.5c 720a 2.53a 2.45b 1.82b 92.9 38 89.2cd 27.7 90.5 87.8c 724a 2.42b 2.64a 1.90a 92.1 69 103.0a 26.9 90.2 108.0a 594c 1.85d 2.65a 1.55d 77.0 90 91.3bc 27.4 90.8 94.8b 678b 2.08c 2.45b 1.60d 87.8 45 93.7b 27.5 90.7 87.9c 727a 2.09c 2.45b 1.70c 89.9 179 89.9cd 27.4 91.2 91.3bc 706ab 2.07c 2.45b 1.68c 90.6 1 Any two means in the same row followed by the same letter are not statistically different. 2 Recomputed by the reviewer
    9. 9. Table 4.The Reproductive Performance of Yorkshire, Landrace and Duroc Breeds (Siagian et al. 1986) Parameters Yorkshire Landrace Duroc Litter size at birth Born alive Stillborn Total Percent stillborn Litter size at weaning Percent weaning based on Total pigs born Pigs born alive 30-day old weight, kg2 Internal between, days Weaning to conception Two farrowings Pigs weaned/sow/year 9.25a 0.86a 10.11a 6.77a 7.58b 80.71b 75.35b 4.97 25.2b 172.1b 16.07 9.22a 0.86b 9.91b 5.30b 7.87a 84.77a 80.13a 5.24 31.2a 181.2a 15.82 7.78b 0.69b 8.46c 6.81a 5.05c 64.71c 60.50c 4.89 23.9b 169.1b 10.91 1 Any two means in the same row followed by the same letter are not statistically different. 2 Recomputed by the reviewer
    10. 10. Table 5.The Reproductive Performance of Sows belonging to different Breeds (Argañosa et al. 1988) Parameters Purebred Pietrain crossed with Yorkshire Duroc Pietrain Yorkshire Duroc Hampshire Litter size at birth Born alive Stillborn Total Percent stillborn Litter size at weaning Percent weaning based on Total pigs born Pigs born alive 30-day old weight, kg2 Internal between, days Weaning to conception Two farrowings Pigs weaned/sow/year 8.82ab 1.00 9.82ab 10.39 7.20abc 72.55bc 80.03ab 4.96 26.7 166.4b 15.77 8.10ab 0.66 8.76bc 5.35 6.24c 66.82c 73.39b 4.79 26.8 174.5b 13.04 9.05ab 0.68 9.73abc 6.70 8.05a 83.50a 89.60a 4.51 38.6 194.4a 15.13 9.27a 0.70 9.97a 6.16 7.73ab 81.11ab 86.18a 4.81 36.8 180.6ab 15.61 8.47ab 1.16 9.63abc 10.87 7.00abc 73.65abc 82.67ab 5.09 31.4 178.8ab 14.28 7.93b 0.69 8.63c 7.31 6.87bc 80.52ab 80.98a 5.44 20.1 175.5ab 14.29 1 Any two means in the same row followed by the same letter are not statistically different. 2 Recomputed by the reviewer
    11. 11. Table 6.The Reproductive Performance of Sows belonging to Different Breed Groups (Argañosa et al. 1991) Parameters Lndrac e Yrkshir e Lndrce x yrkshire Duroc Pietrain Duroc x Petrain F1 Sow Litter size at birth Born alive Stillborn Total Percent stillborn Litter size at weaning Percent weaning based on Total pigs born Pigs born alive 30-day old weight, kg2 Internal between, days Weaning to conception Two farrowings Pigs weaned/sow/year Farrowing rate ,% 8.64b 0.23c 8.87b 2.67d 7.81b 87.32a 90.27a 7.04a 18.3 168.7 17.45c 76.82ab 8.90ab 0.29b 9.19ab 3.14cd 8.04ab 88.13a 91.26a 6.79b 18.6 164.5 18.02bc 78.78a 8.85ab 0.29b 9.14ab 3.16cd 8.19a 89.66a 92.49a 7.00a 15.6 161.9 18.59ab 77.65ab 7.34d 0.40a 7.73d 5.18a 5.86e 75.26c 79.39c 6.26c 17.9 161.9 13.23e 73.92b 7.73c 0.36ab 8.09c 4.36ab 6.02d 74.57c 77.89c 6.27c 19.1 155.2 13.29e 66.58c 7.98c 0.29b 8.27c 3.65bc 6.93c 83.43b 86.59b 6.75b 20.3 194.5 15.41d 68.21c 9.05a 0.30b 9.35a 3.42bcd 8.37a 89.39a 92.57a 7.09a 16.3 160.7 19.04a 79.19a 1 Any two means in the same row followed by the same letter are not statistically different. 2 Recomputed by the reviewer
    12. 12. Table 7.The Reproductive Performance of Sows from Different breed groups in Farm A (Somchai,1992) LL YY LY YL L(LY) Y(LY) D(LY) (PD)(LY) P(LY) L(YL) Y(YL) D(YL) (PD g ased g ays ear 8.73c 0.33 9.06b 2.66 8.17cd 90.24b 93.34bc 7.45abc 18.50a 162.97a 18.53c 8.71c 0.42 9.13b 3.40 7.93d 86.77c 90.47c 7.30c 13.43bc 157.20b 18.26c 8.72c 0.34 9.05b 2.82 8.24c 90.52b 93.91ab 7.48abc 14.22b 158.76b 19.62bc 8.77bc 0.35 9.05b 2.82 8.24c 90.52b 93.91ab 7.48abc 14.22b 158.76b 19.62bc 9.63a 0.31 9.94a 2.21 9.02a 92.15ab 94.94ab 7.51abc 16.80ab 161.35ab 19.96abc 9.27a 0.34 9.61a 2.56 8.80a 91.71ab 94.98ab 7.53ab 12.20bc 156.02b 20.87a 9.35a 0.30 9.65a 2.54 8.39a 92.23ab 95.03ab 7.53ab 15.25b 159.48b 20.85a 9.34a 0.32 9.66a 2.54 8.89a 92.12ab 95.27ab 7.63bc 12.97bc 157.19b 20.49ab 9.47a 0.22 9.69a 1.70 8.90a 92.46ab 94.54ab 7.44abc 11.41bc 156.23b 20.69ab 9.92a 0.40 9.69a 2.62 8.77a 90.16bc 93.67abc 7.43abc 15.05b 159.54b 19.78abc 9.13ab 0.42 9.55a 3.37 8.66ab 90.67b 94.48ab 7.51abc 10.94c 155.14b 20.46ab 9.22a 0.28 9.49a 1.78 8.80a 92.96a 95.53a 7.65a 13.26bc 157.54b 20.47ab 7.6 0. 9.9 3. 9.1 91.6 95.4 7.3 15.3 159 21. 1 Any two means in the same row followed by the same letter are not statistically different. 2 First letter represents breed of sire and second letter represents breed of dam; L=Landrace:Y=Yorkshire;D=Duroc;P=Pietrain;(YL)=F1 sows coming from Landrace boar and Yorkshire sow and so on down the line.
    13. 13. Table 8.The Reproductive Performance of Sows from the Different breed groups in Farm B (Somchai,1992) Parameters LL YY LY YL L(LY) Y(LY) D(LY) L(YL) Y(YL) D(YL) Avg Litter size at birth Born alive Stillborn Total Percent stillborn Litter size at weaning Percent weaning based on Total pigs born Pigs born alive 30-day old weight, kg Interval between, days Weaning to conception Two farrowings Pigs weaned/sow/year 9.46cd 0.78ab 10.22bc 7.07ab 8.31b 81.81b 87.29b 6.66ab 19.04a 168.14a 18.69de 9.19d 0.88a 10.06c 8.60a 7.81c 71.10c 83.12a 6.43d 11.77c 160.41c 18.13e 9.81abc 0.83a 10.73a 7.33a 8.69ab 82.54b 88.74ab 6.64ab 14.88b 163.81b 19.80cd 9.69bc 0.62bc 10.31bc 5.32bc 8.39b 82.38b 86.96b 6.62bc 14.28b 162.91b 19.36d 9.56cd 0.54c 10.11c 4.84c 8.64ab 86.80a 90.96a 6.72a 9.39d 154.93d 20.59bc 9.77 0.59c 10.36bc 4.90c 8.60ab 83.79b 87.69b 6.61c 9.25d 153.99d 20.81abc 9.83abc 0.47c 10.30bc 4.22c 8.87a 87.05a 90.20ab 6.52cd 9.83cd 155.11d 21.23ab 9.55abc 0.57c 10.11c 5.06bc 8.83ab 87.43a 91.19a 6.71ab 7.30d 152.83d 21.07abc 9.97ab 0.58c 10.55ab 5.30bc 8.70ab 83.66b 87.87ab 6.63abc 8.26d 153.87d 21.06abc 10.12a 0.52c 10.63ab 4.59c 8.93a 84.47ab 87.81ab 6.52cd 8.94d 154.95d 21.59a 9.69 0.63 10.33 5.72 8.58 83.72 88.18 6.61 11.25 158.01 20.24 1 Any two means in the same row followed by the same letter are not statistically different. 2 First letter represents breed of sire and second letter represents breed of dam; L=Landrace:Y=Yorkshire;D=Duroc;P=Pietrain;(YL)=F1 sows coming from Landrace boar and Yorkshire sow and so on down the line.
    14. 14. Table 9.The Effects of Breed of Sows on the different reproductive traits in Farm A (Somchai. 1992) Parameters Breed of Sows 1,2 Landrace (LL) Yorkshire (YL) Landrace x Yorkshire (LY) Yorkshire x Landrace (YL) Average Litter size at birth Born alive Stillborn Total Percent stillborn Litter size at weaning Percent weaning based on Total pigs born Pigs born alive 30-day old weight, kg Internal between, days Weaning to conception Two farrowings Pigs weaned/sow/year 8.84b 0.31 9.15b 2.48 8.31b 90.76b 93.53b 7.45ab 17.58a 161.93a 18.90b 8.81b 0.34 9.15b 2.87 8.18b 88.98c 92.1c 7.34c 13.91b 158.15b 19.26b 9.40a 0.30 9.70a 2.35 8.93a 92.27a 95.15a 7.43bc 13.61b 157.90b 20.74a 9.34a 0.33 9.67a 2.46 8.89a 92.09ab 95.17a 7.56a 12.58b 156.95b 20.47a 9.10 0.32 9.42 2.54 8.58 91.03 94.02 7.45 14.40 158.71 19.85 1 Any two means in the same row followed by the same letter are not statistically different. 2 First letter represents breed of sire and second letter represents breed of dam; L=Landrace:Y=Yorkshire;D=Duroc;P=Pietrain;(YL)=F1 sows coming from Landrace boar and Yorkshire sow and so on down the line
    15. 15. Table 10.The Effects of Breed of Sows on the different reproductive traits in Farm B (Somchai. 1992) Parameters Breed of Sows Landrace (LL) Yorkshire (YL) Landrace x Yorkshire (LY) Yorkshire x Landrace (YL) Average Litter size at birth Born alive Stillborn Total Percent stillborn Litter size at weaning Percent weaning based on Total pigs born Pigs born alive 30-day old weight, kg2 Internal between, days Weaning to conception Two farrowings Pigs weaned/sow/year 9.70ab 0.64b 10.34ab 5.59b 8.50bc 83.12b 87.74bc 6.60a 16.19a 165.12a 19.43b 9.65b 0.81b 10.56a 7.50a 8.45c 80.60c 86.39c 6.51b 13.72b 162.53b 19.40b 9.73ab 0.53b 10.27b 4.65b 8.72ab 85.94a 89.68c 6.51b 13.72b 162.53b 19.40b 9.97a 0.53b 10.53a 4.99b 8.85a 84.89ab 6.62a 8.72c 8.72c 154.54c 21.32a 9.76 0.64 10.41 5.74 8.59 83.40 87.95 6.60 11.96 161.68 20.22 1 1 Any two means in the same row followed by the same letter are not statistically different. 2 First letter represents breed of sire and second letter represents breed of dam; L=Landrace:Y=Yorkshire;D=Duroc;P=Pietrain;(YL)=F1 sows coming from Landrace boar and Yorkshir
    16. 16. Table 11. The effects of breed of boar on the different reproductive traits in Farm A (Somchai. 1992) Parameters Breed of Boar2 Landrace (LL) Yorkshir e (YY) Duroc (DD) Peitrain x Duroc Pietrain Litter size at birth Born alive Stillborn Total Percent stillborn Litter size at weaning Percent weaning based on Total pigs born Pigs born alive 30-day old weight, kg Interval between, days Weaning to conception Two farrowings Pigs weaned/sow/year 9.02 0.34ab 9.35 2.60 8.54 91.37a 94.61 7.51 15.2a 159.75a 19.78 8.99 0.38a 9.37 3.00 8.42 89.89b 93.34 7.47 13.44b 157.38b 19.76 9.02 0.30b 9.32 2.34 8.54 91.34ab 94.07 7.43 15.69a 159.95a 19.92 9.15 0.35ab 9.50 2.92 8.65 90.81ab 94.22 7.39 14.97ab 159.13ab 19.99 9.31 0.24b 9.55 1.86 8.73 91.71a 93.79 7.43 12.77b 157.45ab 19.77 Any two means in the same row followed by the same letter are not statistically different.
    17. 17. Table 12. The effects of breed of boar on the different reproductive traits in Farm B (Somchai. 1992) Parameters Breed of Boar Landrace Yorkshire Duroc Average Litter size at birth Born alive Stillborn Total Percent stillborn Litter size at weaning Percent weaning based on Total pigs born Pigs born alive 30-day old weight, kg2 Interval between, days Weaning to conception Two farrowings Pigs weaned/sow/year 9.74 0.67 10.41 5.88 8.70 84.83a 89.78a 6.70a 12.89a 160.23a 20.26b 9.71 0.66 10.37 5.92 8.42 81.93b 86.58c 6.58b 10.97b 157.85b 19.95b 9.90 0.58 10.49 5.25 8.76 84.17a 88.10b 6.49c 12.32a 159.63a 20.59a 9.76 0.64 10.41 5.74 8.59 83.40 87.95 6.60 11.96 161.68 20.22Any two means in the same row followed by the same letter are not statistically different.
    18. 18. Table 13. Production performance of barrows and gilts from two breed groups of market hogs (Somchai,1992) (Somchai.1992) Parameters Breed Group * Sex Averag e Purebred Gilts D(LY) D(YL) Barrow Gilt Landrac e Yorkshir e No. of Animals Initial age, days Initial weight, kg Final weight, kg Days on test ADG, g Backfat Thickness, cm Feed Efficiency A.D.Feed Intake, kg Adjusted 180-day wt.kg Age at 90-kg weight, days*** 40 82.0 34.8 91.3** 73.2 778 1.35 3.03 2.35** 106.1 153 40 81.5 35.3 90.7 70.4 796 1.47 3.16 2.51 107.8 151 40 82.0 36.4 91.8** 68.0** 821 1.45 3.13 2.56** 110.4** 147 40 81.5 33.7 90.1 75.5 753 1.37 3.07 2.30 103.5 157 80 81.8 35.1 91.6 71.8 78.7 1.41 3.10 2.43 106.9 152 40 71.6 26.4 91.0 93.4 69.5 1.32 99.38 162 40 73.4 26.1 90.7 90.2 71.7 1.34 99.83 162 * D = Duroc (Terminal sire) (LY)= F1 sows coming from Landrace boar and Yorkshire sow (YL)= F1 sows coming from Yorskhire boar and Landrace Sow ** Significantly different at <0.05 *** Recomputed by the reviewer
    19. 19. Table 14.Percentage Heterosis in selected traits realized in Crossbred (Arganosa et al.1991) Traits Group Lndrce x Yorkshire Duroc x Pietrain Crossbred Sows x Terminal Shire Litter size at birth Born alive Stillborn Total Percent stillborn Litter size at weaning Percent weaning based on Pigs born alive weaning weight, kg Pigs weaned/sow/year 0.91 11.54 1.22 3.34 1.90 1.23 4.87 5.91 -23.68 4.85 16.67 10.11 7.74 16.21 11.01 -6.25 10.39 20.74 9.29 7.53 22.86
    20. 20. Table 15.Percentage heterosis in selected traits realized in F1 sows (Somchai,1992) Traits Farm A Farm B Litter size at birth Born alive Stillborn Total Percent stillborn Litter size at weaning Percent weaning based on Total pigs born Pigs born alive 30-day old weight, kg2 Internal between, days Weaning to conception Two farrowings Pigs weaned/sow/year 6.18 -3.08 5.85 8.07 2.57 2.49 1.35 -16.38 -1.64 7.99 1.60 -26.90 -48 3.66 4.34 2.50 0.99 -38.79 -5.60 8.76
    21. 21. Summary O The average reproductive and productive performance of purebred Landrace, Yorkshire, Duroc, and Peitrain and crossbred litters and crossbred sows involving these four breeds were summarized. O After about 15 years of selecting, breeding and evaluation, the following were found relevant.
    22. 22. 1. Imported purebred Landrace, Yorkshire, Duroc and Petrain and their purebred and crossbred offspring did not perform as good as the same breeds in other temperate countries. However, their performance was as good as those found in previous studies reported under Philippine conditions. 2. The white breeds had higher reproductive performance than the colored breeds. 3. The crossbred litters performed better than the purebred parental breeds.
    23. 23. 4. The crossbred Landrace x Yorkshire or Yorkshire x Landrace sows mated to either parental breed or terminal sires performed better then purebred sows. 5. The market hogs produced out of Landrace x Yorkshire or Yorkshire x Landrace sows mated to Duroc boars averaged 90 kg at 152 days. 6. Heterosis was highest in crossbred sows mated to terminal sire. 7. No information is available on traits associated with carcass desirability. The need for live animals and carcass evaluation is very relevant.
    24. 24. Literature Cited O ARBOLEDA,C.R. VG. ARGAÑOSA,PARKER,A.L.LAMBIO,OA,PALAD, FF PENALBA,OL BONDOC and N.A. CARIGMA 1985a Philippine livestock. Imports then and now. Research at Los Baños 4(2).6-9, 23. O ARBOLEDA,C.R. VG. ARGAÑOSA,PARKER,A.L.LAMBIO,OA,PALAD, FF PENALBA,OL BONDOC and N.A. CARIGMA 1985b Improvement of Philippine livestock. Imports then and now. Research at Los Baños 4(2).6-9, 23.
    25. 25. O ARGAÑOSA VG.JV SERRANO,JR and RP REYES 1979b, Production performance of imported Landrace,Welsh,Yorkshire and synthetic line of swine from England. Phil.J.Vet.Animal Sci.5(3) 170-178. O ARGAÑOSA VG, LP NAPOLES and AG AQUINO 1988. Comparative reproductive performance of purebred Pietrain swine and their crossbreds with Duroc, Yorkshire and Hampshire Phil.Agr.71 (1).104-113. O ARGAÑOSA VG,OM GATMAITAN,MO VILLETTA and PRL HUBILLA 1991.The performance of purebred and crossbred sows Asian-Australasian, J.Animal Sci.4 (2) 143-150.
    26. 26. O ARGAÑOSA VG,PH.SIAGIAN,AG./AQUINO, CC LOPEZ and AL DE GUZMAN 1986. Productive performance of Yorkshire, Landrace and Duroc breeds. Phil Agr.69 (2)119-129. O ARGAÑOSA VG.TS SAN JOSE, DMT MATA,JV SERRANO,JR and RP REYES 1980. Production performance of imported pigs in the Philippines. Paper presented during the First Asian-Australasian Animal Science congress, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 31.p
    27. 27. O ARGAÑOSA VG.TS SAN JOSE, DMT MATA,JV SERRANO,JR and RP REYES 1979a. The Reproduction performance of four imported breeds of swine from four countries. Phil.J.Vet .Animal Science.5 (1) 29-48. O BOMMELI,H and L.BUTLER 1976.Swiss Improved Landrace Breed Society Annual Report Animal Breed Abrstr.44 (7);368. O BUTLER,L.1977.Improved Landrace Breed Society. Annual Report. Animal breed Abstr 45 (10) 568.
    28. 28. O RIGOR,EM,and RC. FAJARDO 1967. The Performance of Large white under Los Baños conditions.Phil.Agr.51 (3) 206- 210. O RIGOR,EM,RC. FAJARDO and MG SUPNET 1967A. Performance of Philippine pig X Landrace x Philippine pig crosses.Phil.Agr.50 (9) 861-865. O RIGOR,EM,RC. FAJARDO and PL BENNAGEN.1967B. The performance of large white x Philippine pig crosses (F2) and the inter se mated (F3) pigs.Phil.Agr.51 (6) 536-540.
    29. 29. O SOMCHAI ,ORANKANOK 1992.Performance of purebred and reciprocal crossbreed Landrace and Yorkshire sows from two commercial farms.Phd.thesis.University of the Philippines los Baños,College, Laguna. O VARJAN,RS 1968.Welsh pigs at Ukrania Animal Breed.Abstr 36 (1) 93. O WACHLE,E and M.MAURER 1973.Swiss Yorkshire Breeders Society Annual report 1972.Animal Breed Abstr.41(10)504.
    30. 30. Reference O The Philippine Agriculturist Volume 77 no.1 pages 31-45.
    31. 31. Thank you!!

    ×