Design and standards for genetic evaluation of swine seedstock populations

Journal of Animal Science

Volumn 81, Issue 10, 2003, Pages 2409-2418

  Baas, T J ^a,g   Goodwin, R N ^b   Christian, L L ^a   Johnson, R K ^c   Robison, O W ^d   Mabry, J W ^a   Clark, K ^e   Tokach, M ^f   Henry, S ^g   Berger, P J ^a  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL PORK BOARD   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^d NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g 109 Kildee Hall ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Animal Genetic Resources; Design; Genetic Variation; Standards; Swine

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; SUS SCROFA;

EID: 2342448562     PISSN: 00218812     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2527/2003.81102409x     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Anderson, K. 2001. Page 7 in North Carolina Layer Performance and Management Test Established in 1957. Dept. of Poult. Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh.
2. Cochran, W. G., and G. M. Cox. 1957. Experimental Designs. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
3. Goodwin, R. N., L. L. Christian, and H. Hill. 1993. Effects of commingling very young pigs on genetic evaluation programs. J. Anim. Sci. 71(Suppl. 1):35. (Abstr.)
4. Hartman, W. 1985. Random sample poultry tests - Their development and present status in European countries. World Poult. Sci. J. 41:153-159.
5. Johnson, R. K. 1981. Crossbreeding in swine: Experimental results. J. Anim. Sci. 52:906-923.
6. Johnson, R. K., and I. T. Omtvedt. 1973. Evaluation of purebreds and two-breed crosses in swine: Reproductive performance. J. Anim. Sci. 37:1279-1288.
7. Koch, R. M., M. E. Dikeman, D. M. Allen, M. May, J. D. Crouse, and D. R. Campion. 1976. Characterization of biological types of cattle. III. Carcass composition, quality and palatability. J. Anim. Sci. 43:48-62.
8. Koch, R. M., M. E. Dikeman, and J. D. Crouse. 1982. Characterization of biological types of cattle (cycle III). III. Carcass composition, quality and palatability. J. Anim. Sci. 54:35-45.
9. Koch, R. M., M. E. Dikeman, R. J. Lipsey, D. M. Allen, and J. D. Grouse. 1979. Characterization of biological types of cattle-cycle II: III. Carcass composition, quality and palatability. J. Anim. Sci. 49:448-460.
10. NSIF. 1997. Guidelines for Uniform Swine Improvement Programs. USDA, Washington, DC.
11. NPPC. 1991. Final report of the National Genetic Evaluation Task Force to the National Pork Producers Council Executive Committee. Natl. Pork Prod. Counc., Des Moines, IA.
12. NPPC. 1995. Genetic Evaluation/Terminal Line Program Results. R. Goodwin and S. Burroughs, ed. Natl. Pork Prod. Counc., Des Moines, IA.
13. Wheeler, T. L., L. V. Cundiff, R. M. Koch, and J. D. Crouse. 1996. Characterization of biological types of cattle (cycle IV). Carcass traits and longissimus palatability. J. Anim. Sci. 74:1023-1035.
14. Wilson, E. R., and R. K. Johnson. 1981. Comparison of three-breed and backcross swine for litter productivity and postweaning performance. J. Anim. Sci. 52:18-25.
15. Working Group 3. 1999. Combined summaries of European random sample egg production tests completed in 1997 and 1998. World Poult. Sci. J. 55:203-205.