Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:52:31.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economics of Swine Crossbreeding Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Randall A. Merrell ,
C. Richard Shumway ,
James O. Sanders  and
T. D. Tanksley Jr.
Randall A. Merrell
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
C. Richard Shumway
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
James O. Sanders
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
T. D. Tanksley Jr.
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Crossbreeding in commercial hog operations is widely practiced and has increased substantially in recent years. Perhaps the most important positive feature of crossbreeding is heterosis, i.e., the performance of crossbred progeny is superior to the average performance of the parents. In addition, producers have much wider options in breeding for desired carcass traits and sire and dam characteristics when blending breeds than when making genetic selection within any single breed. The costs to the firm are primarily managerial because of the necessity of buying replacements, frequently rotating boar breed, or maintaining miniherds to produce replacements for the breeding herd. Over the long run there is also a potential cost to the industry of reducing the number of purebred lines from which the crossbreds are derived and thus slowing genetic improvements within breeds.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , December 1979 , pp. 89 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Christians, C. J. and Johnson, R. K.. Crossbreeding Programs for Commercial Pork Production, Purdue University Agricultural Extension Service Pork Industry Handbook No. 39, 1978.Google Scholar
[2]Cooper, L. and Steinberg, D.. Introduction to Methods of Optimization. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1970.Google Scholar
[3]Cunningham, P. J. “Crossbreeding for Maximum Profit,” Hog Farm Management, Volume 13, 1976, p. 48.Google Scholar
[4]Johnson, R. K., Omtvedt, I. T., and Walters, L. E.. “Comparison of Productivity and Performance for Two-Breed and Three-Breed Crosses in Swine,” Journal of Animal Science, Volume 46, 1978, pp. 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Ladd, G. W. and Gibson, C.. “Microeconomics of Technical Change: What's a Better Animal Worth?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 60, 1978, pp. 236–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Merrell, R. A. “Predicted Profitability of Three-Breed Rotational, Specific, and Criss-Outcross Crossbreeding Systems in Swine Production Using Durocs, Yorkshires and Hampshires,” Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural Economics Information Report DIR 79-1, SP-3, 1979.Google Scholar
[7]Tweeten, L. G. “Farm Commodity Prices and Income,” Consensus and Conflict in U.S. Agriculture, Gardner, B. L. and Richardson, J. W., eds. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
[8]Young, L. D., Johnson, R. K., and Omtvedt, I. T.. “Reproductive Performance of Swine Bred to Produce Purebred and Two-Breed Cross Litters,” Journal of Animal Science, Volume 42, 1976, pp. 1133–1149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[9]Young, L. D., Johnson, R. K., Omtvedt, I. T., and Walters, L. E.. “Postweaning Performance and Carcass Merit of Purebred and Two-Breed Cross Pigs,” Journal of Animal Science, Volume 42, 1976, pp. 1124–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar