Pedigree Pig Improvement: Review of Progress up to 1958

New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume 98, Issue 4, 15 April 1959, Page 359

Pedigree Pig Improvement: Review of Progress up to 1958

THE last review of the data recorded under th,e Pedigree Pig Improvement Scheme launched in June 1956 by the New Zealand Pig Breeders' Association and the New Zealand Pig Producers' Council was published in the "Journal" in February 1958. This review by A. Longwill, Superintendent, Pig Industry, Department of Agriculture, Wellington, brings the information recorded under the scheme up to date as at 31 December 1958. The review covers 212 litters recorded up to the end of the period and for which carcass appraisal had been completed.

THE main justifications for any onfarm pig recording scheme are: (a) The breeder is encouraged to take a keener interest in the selection of his stock for commercial qualities and in the provision of conditions which will enable them to express their full capacity in this direction. (b) Records can provide information which, if properly interpreted, will give a better guide than has existed to selection of individual animals with higher-than-average breeding merit. By providing a more precise measure of performance of any animal and of its merit for breeding, through the performance of its litter brothers and sisters or of its progeny, recording may, if the data are comprehensive, be a basis for the development of better pedigree pigs generally. (c) Though performances are not, ■comparable as between farms, and where progeny are recorded on only •one or a limited number of farms the precise value of the inherited component of the performance cannot be determined, some degree of selection on commercial merit can be achieved by setting a sufficiently high standard for each of the important commercial criteria. Standards Employed This scheme aims at publishing the details of performance of pedigree litters which have achieved the minimum standards and using these to assist the individual breeder on his within-herd breeding policy . and, within limits, to guide the prospective purchaser of breeding stock. Results are now published for three performance classes, A, and C (table 1). Results for litters which do not ■reach the required standard are not published, but a full statement is supplied to the breeder. This should help him to determine what is his chief problem. This may lie not so much in . the lack of inherent capacity in his stock as in the management and conditions provided for them, which may have resulted ..in sub-standard litter performance or growth-rate.

Thus informed the breeder has the incentive to provide an environment which will enable his pigs to express their full capacity for efficient production. Only under such conditions can selection be made for such economically important characters as growthrate. Only when this has reached a reasonable standard do differences in „ .... , carcass qualities mean very much. This is the logical order of priorities in improvement when, as at present,

there is no commercial expression of preference for a high-quality carcass. Because a boar sires a relatively high number of progeny, it is very important in pig improvement to recognise the sire with capacity to pass on to his progeny with reasonable consistency genes responsible for the development of characteristics of economic importance. For this reason the performances of litters are grouped under their respective sires. When three class A litters from different sows, no two of which are closer related than half-sisters, are recorded the boar is regarded as a “Merit Sire”, provided at least 50 per cent of the recorded litters sired by the boar reach the required standard. A clearer picture of his true breeding worth will become apparent as more of his litters, from as wide a variety of sows as possible, preferably under different management conditions, become available.

It may well be that a boar rated Merit Sire on the basis of a few litters in a very well managed herd may be less deserving of the title than another whose litters are recorded under less favourable circumstances. However, until more recording has been done and our rough methods for selecting animals with the desired genetic make-up are developed into something more precise they provide the best available guide to breeding worth. The only two boars which have qualified under the present Merit Sire requirements as outlined are: National Dirk (13631), seven qualified class A litters out of a total of 12 litters recorded at the National Breeding Centre, Korakonui. Dominion Bonza (12824), three qualified class A litters, two recorded in Mr. E. W. Harrison’s stud, Palmerston North, and one in Mr C. P. Clout’s stud, Eketahuna. Only three litters by this boar have been recorded under the scheme. Analysis of Lifter-recording Data Of the 212 nominations received for which all stages of the recording have been completed during the period under review 58 were withdrawn and one litter was aborted. Fifteen additional to those reported on in the previous review were withdrawn because insufficient pigs were born for them to reach the threshold litterperformance standard. Of the 153 litters weighed at three weeks 122 reached the required three weeks’ standard, but 28 were not proceeded with to the carcass-test stage. Among the reasons for this the commonest were slow growth-rate, pigs required for breeding, and knowledge that the litter would not qualify better than class C. An analysis of the performance of the 153 litters is set out in Table 2. Details of litter performance as at 21 days according to breed and sequence number of litter are summarised in Table 3. Table 4 sets out all the essential performance data for the litters which have qualified subsequent to those published in February 1958.

Class Minimum standards of performance Number in and weight of litters Points for at 3 growth-rate weightPoints for weeks quality of litters Points for growth-rate Points for quality | carcass at 3 weeks Maiden litters Second and subsequent (maximum) (maximum No. Liveweight No Liveweight 25) ... 100) ! 1 — ■ lb lb A 7 lb 75 8 lb 95 871 (70 per cent ' • per cent B 7 75 8 95 of possible) 10 70 C . . • .. 6 65 7 80 10 70 —

TABLE 1—QUALIFYING STANDARDS FOR LITTER PERFORMANCE, GROWTH-RATE, AND CARCASS QUALITY

Litters Weighed but not Carcass Tested but not Carcass Tested Basis of disqualification railed to reach litter-performance (a) Number alive at 3 weeks . . 7 standard .. 31 • (b) Litter weight at 3 weeks .. .. ... 15 (c) Both (a) and (b) .. .. 9 (a) Kept or sold for breeding .. ... 9 (b) Setback (disease or feed shortage) 4 Not proceeded with 28 • (c) Abandoned (labour shortage) .. 5 (d) Abandoned (below class A) .. 3 (e) No reason given .. 7 Litters Completing Test (a) Growth-rate .. . .) ... . . 23 Failed to qualify . . 52 1 (b) Carcass quality .. .. 8 (c) Both (a) and (b) '. . 15 (d) One pig only killed . . 6 Class A .. .. .. .. 38 Qualified 42 Class B .. . . .. . - . . 1 Class C ... .... .. .. 3

TABLE 2—ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE OF 153 LITTERS WEIGHED (FROM 212 NOMINATIONS)

Breed Maiden litters Second and subsequent litters No. of litters Maiden litters Av. No. of pigs Total litter weight Born (21 days) of pigs Alive Total litter weight (21 days) lb. Second and subsequent litters No. of litters Av. No. of piqs Total litter weight (21 days) lb. Born Born Alive Alive Born Alive Large white ..18 10.5 8.7 95 95 12.8 9.8 113 Berkshire 7 10.1 9.3 91 14 10.1 8.8 107 Tamworth 2 10.5 8.5 , 80 12 9.4 7.7 98 Large black 1 9 7 ' 75 1 11 9 139 Wessex . . — ■ —• — — — 3 3 11.3 11.3 10.6 10.6 121 121 All breeds . . 28 10.3 8.8 1 93 125 11.9 9.5 111

TABLE 3—LITTER RECORDING RESULTS: BREED SUMMARY

Breeding of litter Carcass test results (average) points Owner Date born weight at 3 Deadweight Growthrate 1 Back fat Total points litter Breeding Sire Date born Litter weight at 3 weeks . Deadweight Carcass test results (average) points Total points Dam weeks Length 1 1 Sh. | Loin Bal. Ham Sh. L. B. M. Sire Dam Growthrate • Length Back fat Bal. Ham Sh. L. B. M. Sh. Loin A lb lb (25) (20) (10) (15) (5) (15) (10) (10) (5) (10) (125) Wright, L.W. 12432 L.W. 14336 6/7/58 146 84 13 171 91 + 111 + 4 12 8 7 5 10 971 Myers, L.W. 14990 L.W. 14185 27/6/58 111 81 161 161 8 + 15 41 10 5 7 4 8 94 Eketahuna C. . Clout, L.W. 12824 L.W. 13074 7/6/58 155 75 13 17 7— 13— 9 7 71 4 91 92 Whangarei C. (Mrs), L.W. 14663 L.W. 14159 30/6/58 159 87 25 71 10 11— i 111 5 6 3 81 ■ 901 C. Clout, 12432 L.W. 14812 L.W. 15344 7/7/58 127 83 9 19 81— ; - 5 .13 — 5 10 ■ 6 9 89 » L.W. 14990 L.W. 12824 L.W. 14663 L.W. 14812 L.W. 14336 L.W. 14185 L.W. 13074 L.W. 14159 L.W. 15344 6/7/58 27/6/58 7/6/58 30/6/58 7/7/58 lb 146 111 155 159 127 lb 84 81 75 87 83 (25) 13 161 13 9 (20) 171 161 17 71 19 (10) 9i + 8 + 7— 10 81— ' (15) 111 + 15 13— lS(5! 41 • (15) 12 10 9 111 10 (10) 8 7 5 51 (10) 7 7 71 6 6 (5) 5 4 4 5 41 (10) 10 8 91 81 9 (125) 971 94 92 901 895 C McGregor, V. 30857 B. B. 31408 15/8/58 85 71 22 161 61 + 15 5i 71 0 41 971 BACONERS ■ B. 31408 15/8/58 85 71 22 161 61 + 15 5 10 51 71 5 41 971 BACO NEILS ■ i A Heppenstall, E. L.W. 13947 L.W. 14387 1/6/58 146 130 20 18 9+ . (20) 18— 11 7 61 a 4 (5) 5 1031 G. . L.W. 13947 L.W. 13737 12/5/58 125 125 22J 17 81+ ■ 17 + , 3 111 51 1 61 . 5 103 Otorohanga Heppenstall, E. L.W. 13947 L.W. 14388 1/6/58 117 133 21 .15 6 + 1 18— 1 a 12 7 6 2 97 Council, Pig Te L.W. 13631 • L.W. 13145 9/7/57 135 145 16J 13 91 + 17 + 8 7 5 31 91 Awamutu Ngaruawahia and W. J. 13947 18871 T. 18738 24/9/57 137 137 101 16J 61 + I 17 + 1 + 111 7 8 31 4 89 + Points lost because too much fat. — Points ’lost because too little fat L.W. 13947 L.W. 13947 L.W. 13631 T. 18871 L.W. 14387 L.W. 13737 L.W. 14388 L.W. 13145 T. 18738 1/6/58 12/5/58 1/6/58 9/7/57 24/9/57 146 135 137 130 125 133 145 137 20 22i 21" 161 101 18 17 15 13 161 9 + 85 + 6 + 91 + 61 + (20) 1817 + 17 + 17 + i - 1 41 1 11 111 12 91 1 1.11 7 51 7 8 7 61 61 6 7 8 ! 4 1 41 2 ' 31 (5) 5 5 31 4 1031 103 97 91 89 + Points lost because too much fat. — Points lost because too little fat

TABLE 4-PEDIGREE PIG IMPROVEMENT SCHEME: QUALIFIED LITTERS (Maximum points in brackets: L., loin development; B., belly thickness; M., marketing points) PORKERS