National pork producers council maternal line genetic evaluation: A comparison of growth and carcass traits in terminal progeny

Journal of Animal Science

Volumn 82, Issue 12, 2004, Pages 3482-3485

  Cassady, J P ^a,g   Robison, O W ^a   Johnson, R K ^b   Mabry, J W ^c   Christian, L L ^c   Tokach, M D ^d   Miller, R K ^e   Goodwin, R N ^f  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^c IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f NATIONAL PORK BOARD   (United States)

^g 232B Polk Hall ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Carcass; Growth; Line Evaluation; Pigs

Indexed keywords

PIERIS BRASSICAE; SUS SCROFA;

EID: 9744254817     PISSN: 00218812     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2527/2004.82123482x     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Baas, T. J., R. N. Goodwin, L. L. Christian, R. K. Johnson, O. W. Robison, J. W. Mabry, K. Clark, M. Tokach, S. Henry, and P. J. Berger. 2003. Design and standards for genetic evaluation of swine seedstock populations. J. Anim. Sci. 81:2409-2418.
2. Bennett, G. L., M. W. Tess. G. E. Dickerson, and R. K. Johnson. 1983. Simulation and crossbreeding effects on costs of production. J. Anim. Sci. 56:801-813.
3. Berg, E. P., E. L. McFadin, K. R. Haddock, R. N. Goodwin, T. J. Baas, and D. H. Keisler. 2003. Serum concentrations of leptin in six genetic lines of swine and relationship with growth and carcass characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 81:167-171.
4. Hayter, A. J. 1984. Proof of the conjecture that the Tukey-Kramer method is conservative. The Annals of Statistics. 12:61-75.
5. Johnson, R. K., Nielsen, M. K. and D. A. Casey. 1999. Responses in ovulation rate, embryonal survival, and litter traits in swine to 14 generations of selection to increase litter size. J. Anim. Sci. 77:541-557.
6. Kuhlers, D. L., S. B. Jungst, and J. A. Little. 1985. Comparisons of specific crosses from Duroc, Hampshire, and Spot backcross sows. J. Anim. Sci. 60:603-607.
7. Larzul, C., L. Lefaucheur, P. Ecolan, J. Gogue, A. Talmant, P. Sellier, P. Le Roy, and G. Monin. 1997. Phenotypic and genetic parameters for longissimus muscle fiber characteristics in relation to growth, carcass, and meat quality traits in Large White pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 75:3126-3137.
8. McLaren, D. G., D. S. Buchanan, and R. K. Johnson. 1987. Growth performance for four breeds of swine: Crossbred females and purebred and crossbred boars. J. Anim. Sci. 64:99-108.
9. Moeller, S. J., R. N. Goodwin, R. K. Johnson, J. W. Mabry, T. J. Baas, and O. W. Robison. 2004. The National Pork Producers Council Maternal Line National Genetic Evaluation Program: A comparison of six maternal genetic lines for female productivity measures over four parities. J. Anim Sci. 82:41-53.
10. Tischendorf, F., F. Schöne, U. Kirchheim, and G. Jahreis. 2002. Influence of conjugated linoleic acid mixture on growth, organ, weights, carcass traits and meat quality in growing pigs. J. Anim. Physiol. 86:117-128.
11. 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.