JOURNAL OF THE SCIENTIFIC AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY OF FINLAND
Maataloustieteellinen Aikakauskirja

Voi. 48: I—l2, 1976

Correspondence between phenotype tests of boars and
progeny evaluations made on boars and barrows

Elsi Ettala
University of Helsinki, Department of Animal Breeding 1 )

Abstract. Fifteen boars tested at the experimental station were evaluated on the
basis of 120 boars and 120 barrows from their progeny, one boar and one barrow being
taken from each of their litters. Compared with the barrows, the boars of the progeny
had a higher growth rate (P < 0.01), were meatier (P < 0.001), had less fat (P < 0.001)
and were longer (P < 0.001).

Significant phenotypic correlations existed between the ultrasonic fat measurements
of the sires and the results of the lean cuts analysis of the most valuable parts of the
boar and barrow carcasses (P < 0.05 P < 0.001). The corresponding correlations
with the values of the progeny boars and barrows were equally high. The growth rate
of the sires was significantly correlated with the growth rate of the progeny boars.

The animals were ranked and divided into three groups, the sires on the basis of their

average fat measurements, and the boars and barrows from their progeny on the basis
of the results of the lean cuts analysis of the carcasses. In the best and poorest groups
distinguished by these different methods of evaluation, 40—BO % of the sires were the
same. The correspondence in the middle groups and in groupings made according to
growth rate was smaller than in the groups mentioned above.

Introduction

Phenotype testing has recently come into general use in the selection of
boars for breeding, and has often been combined with sib or progeny evalu-
ation comprising barrows and/or females, i.e. animals with different sexual
characteristics. Barrows, in particular, differ considerably from the other
animals, since the castration of boars causes changes in the metabolism, affect-
ing the rate of growth, feed efficiency, formation of fat and the amount of
lean (Sharp et al. 1975). Perälä et ai. (1974) and Varo (1975) also report
that the extent of the differences between the sexes in the progeny varies from
one boar to another. The question thus arises whether the results are equally
reliable if different sexes are used in investigations of the genetic value of an
animal. On the other hand, it is also questionable whether the selection
of breeding boars based on phenotype testing alone is a sufficiently effective

*) Present address: Agricultural Research Centre, Department of Animal Husbandry,
Tikkurila, Finland.

https://www.c-info.fi/en/info/?token=2198_c5hVa-tCelK.J8xX7srECg2sjIqvTqRD7A.TIYMOnNckNAJimg0T9iXlEQd4rw57V3yzOpP087VUkSyiPXIxM0A3Xa-znAKqZIf_OO_lPQOUiFG5o2y7DaC0ghmBXGGJP1eLO5ojr4a9YbO3wTskKqcE2UaREEXwVTPZV0D6DfJ-eGS680E0RXHxAXFW9J4KLAtwA


2

means of improving the carcass quality of animals raised for pork production,
especially barrows.

An answer to these questions was sought in the present study, in which
comparisons were made between the results of phenotype tests of boars and the
results of progeny evaluations of both boars and barrows sired by them.
Females were not included in the study.

Material and methods

The test animals were 15 phenotype-tested boars (8 Yorkshire and 7 Land-
race), and 120 boars (60 Y + 60 L) and 120 barrows (60 Y + 60 L) chosen
from their progeny. The investigation was conducted at an experimental
station. The numbers of litters sired by the 15 boars ranged from 5 to 11
(average 8) (Table 1), and one boar and one barrow were taken from each of
them for the progeny evaluations.

The characters determined in the phenotype evaluation of the boars were
rate of growth, feed efficiency, thickness of fat and length of side. Fat thick-
ness was measured ultrasonically with a Krautkrämer USM 1 or USK 5 SF,
at the withers (1), midback (2), loin (3) and both sides (4 and 5) (Fig. 1), The
length of the side was measured from the rear edge of the front leg to the base
of the tail (Fig. 1). The measurements of the fat and the length of the side

Fig. 1. Locations of ultrasonic measurements of fat on test boars, and manner in
which length of side was measured.
1 = withers, behind shoulder blades
2 = midback, thinnest place
3 = loin, thinnest place
4 = sol. fat, right side, at rear edge of last rib, about 8 cm from midline of back

(on pig weighing about 88 kg).
Side length is the distance between the vertical lines.



3

were made as near as possible to the time when the liveweight was 88 kg, and,
as they could not always be made sufficiently close to that date, the fat meas-
urements were interpolated to the desired weight. The rate of growth and
feed efficiency values were calculated for the weight range of 20—88 kg. The
boars were fed individually according to restricted energy norms (0.9 —3.0
f.u./animal per day) (Ettala 1973 p. 39), because it was feared that abundant
feeding might cause an increase in leg weaknesses.

The progeny were housed four to a pen and were group fed, the level of
feeding approximating to appetite (1.2—3.2 f.u./animal per day) (Ettala 1973,
p. 45). Each pen contained pigs from two litters of the same boar. The rate
of growth and average feed efficiency of the progeny were determined, and
their carcass characteristics were evaluated by measurements made on the
carcass section (Fig. 2) and lean cuts analysis (big. 3). In the lean cuts analysis,
the most valuable parts of the half carcass (ham, loin, back, foreback and
shoulder) were divided into two parts, namely meat + bone and fat + skin.
The animals were slaughtered when they were as near as possible to a live-
weight of 88 kg. As with the sires, the rate of growth was calculated for the
weight range 20—88 kg. As the boars and barrows were housed in the same
pens, separate feed efficiency values could not be determined.

Fig. 2. Positions for fat
thickness measurement of
porcine carcass section
(Partanen 1965).
1 =withers, 2 = midback,
3a = fore loin, 3 b = mid
loin (corresponding to loin
fat measured ultrasoni-
cally), 3c = rear loin,
4 = side fat.
The longissimus muscle is
measured along the hori-
zontal line shown, and the
side length is the length
of the short vertical line.

Fig. 3. Porcine carcass,
showing the most important
parts (Uusisalmi 1969).
1 = ham, 2 = loin, 3 =

back, 4 = foreback, 5 =

shoulder.



4

Results and discussion

Table 1 shows the results of the ultrasonic fat measurements of the sires
and their ranking and division into three groups on the basis of the average fat

thickness 2,3, j . The aim in dividing the sires into groups was

to discover whether the best third was sufficiently different from the other
groups to justify selecting about 30 % for breeding, or whether the poorest
third, at least, could be distinguished from the others.

Groups I —III differed significantly (P < 0.01) from each other in the

average fat thickness 2,3, -——and in the thickness of the back fat

(1, 2,3). The poorest group also differed significantly from the others in the
average thickness of the midback and the sides (2, 4,5). The individual fat
measurements varied in many different ways in the different boars. Signif-
icant differences in the single measurements were mainly found between the two

Table 1. Ultrasonic fat measurements of sires, and their ranking and grouping according to
mean fat thickness.

Thickness of fat at 88 kg, mm

Hoars Breed 1) No. of withers midback loin sol.right Mean
litters

(1) (2) (3) (4) 1,2, 3 2,4, 52 ) 1,2, 3,

Group I

1. Riku L 7 12.9 11.6 13.9 13.7 12.7 12.6 12.9
2. Ranu L 10 10.2 13.3 12.2 16.3 12.0 15.3 13.0
3. Rukki L 6 17.5 12.2 11.5 11.3 13,6 12.0 13.3
4. Nakeri L 11 19.0 12.7 12.0 11.9 14.6 12.1 13.9
5. Ripa Y 8 18.0 11.0 15.0 16.0 14.7 14.3 15.0

Mean 8.4 15.5» 12.2» 12.9» 13.8»» 13.5» 13.3» 13.6»
Group II
6. Rape Y 8 20.9 12.0 15.9 14.9 16.2 13.2 15.7
7. Hymyri Y 9 20.5 14.6 17.5 16.6 17.6 15.9 15.9
8. Reka Y 5 19.1 14.0 16.1 18.1 16.4 16.4 16.4
9. Kilperi Y 10 20.0 13.1 17.0 18.1 16.8 16.1 16.9

10. Ruuppo Y 5 20.9 14.1 18.9 19.0 18.0 17.1 18.1

Mean 7.4 20.3»a 13.6» 17.1»d 17.3» 17.0d» 15.7» 16.9a»
Group 111

11. Sapro L 8 22.8 16.7 17.8 18.7 19.0 18.0 19.0
12. Rata Y 9 22.4 15.5 20.4 18.5 19.5 17.5 19.2
13. Sapeli L 9 22.9 16.7 18.9 19.8 19.5 18.5 19.5
14. Rooli L 9 24.5 17.4 21.5 20.4 21.1 19.1 20.8
15. Riski Y 6 31.3 19.5 20.3 23.4 23.7 22.1 23.6

Mean 8.2 24.8 a 17,2 a 19.8»a 20.2»a 20.6 1 19.0 a 20.4 1

The significance of the differences between the group means was tested by the analysis of
variance and Tukey’s test (Steel and Torrie 1960).

*) L = Landrace, Y = Yorkshire. 2 ) 5 = sol. left,
a -b: P < 0.05; c - f : P < 0.01.



5

Table 2. Growth rate and feed efficiency of boars and their ranking and grouping according
to growth rate.

Growth f.u./kg wt.
(20 —BB kg) increase

g/day (20 —BB kg)

Group I
1. Hymyri 739 2.34
2. Ruuppo 731 2.37
3. Rata 694 2.51
4. Kilperi 687 2.59
5. Reka 644 2.77

Mean 699° 2.52°
Group II

6. Riski 640 2.59
7. Rooli 624 2.73
8. Rape 597 2.77
9. Ranu 591 3.01

10. Rukki 580 3.17

Mean 606 de 2.85 c
Group 111
11. Ripa 559 3.21
12. Sapro 541 3.23
13. Sapeli 510 3.68
14. Riku 491 3.86
15. Nakeri 436 4.05

Mean 507 » 3.61«

Significance of differences tested as in Table 1.

extreme groups, though some also existed between adjacent groups (Table 1).
Table 2 shows the ranking of the sires according to the rate of growth. It

differs markedly from the ranking on the thickness of the fat (Tables 1 and 2).
In contrast, feed efficiency followed the ranking on growth rate fairly closely.
All the groups differed significantly (P < 0.01) from each other in respect of
growth rate, and the poorest group differed significantly (P < 0.01) from the
others in respect of feed efficiency (P < 0.01).

Table 3 gives the mean results of the progeny evaluations. Compared with
the barrows, the boars grew significantly (P < 0.01) more rapidly, were meatier
(P < 0.001), had less fat (P < 0.001) and were also longer (P < 0.001). The
carcass score developed for selection was also higher (P < 0.001) for the boars
than for the barrows. The score takes into account the meatiness of the animal
and the daily yield of meat, according to the following formula:

A A
Y = X X 10,

B B
where Y = the score

A = weight in grams of the meat -f bone of the most valuable parts of the half
carcass.

B = age in days at slaughter minus half the age in days at a liveweight of 20 kg.
C = weight of the half carcass in grams.



6

Table 3. Mean values and standard deviations of characteristics of progeny (120 boars,
120 barrows).

Boars Barrows Differences
Characteristics

mean s.d. mean s.d, boars barrows

Age at 20 kg 61.3
Age at 88 kg 154.6
Growth (20—88 kg) g/day 760.7

Carcass wt., kg 67.8
Fat thickness, mm

withers 33.7
midback 16.8
loin (mean) 21.3
side 20.7

Area of longissimus muscle, cm2 31.6
Side length, cm 77.1

Meat + bone of half carcass, g
shoulder 2 925
foreback 2 412
back 3 896
ham + loin 6 093

Most valuableparts of 1/2 carcass,
meat + bone, g 15 326
fat + skin, g 4 820
fat : meat 0.32
meat + bone, % 46.5
fat + skin, % 14.6

Carcass score 580.4

9.962.6 9.4 -1.3
12.1158.2 11.4 -3.6**
77.4736.9 71.6 +23.B**

2.367.1 2.1 +0.7

3.838.1 4.0 -4.4***
3.121.3 3.3 -4.s***
4.026.7 3.9 -s.4***
4.0 25,5 4.4 -4.B***
3.629.7 3.6 +l.9***
2.675.9 2.4 fl.2**»

245 2 695 255 +23o***
274 2 257 280 +lss***
376 3 665 410 +23l***
468 5 696 481 +397»**

1 077 14 312 1 127 +lol4***
616 5 670 694 -850***

0.05 0,40 0.07 -o.B»**
3.043.8 2.7 +2.7***
1.917.4 2.0 -2.B***

81.4498.9 74.6 +Bl.s***

The significance of differences between the means of the boars and barrows was tested
by the least-squares analysis of variance (Harvey 1966). The variation due to differences
in carcass weight and breed was eliminated by taking the former as a regression variable
and the latter as a factor.

The differences in carcass quality observed between the boars and the
barrows corresponded to those reported in other studies (Charette 1961,
Prescott and Lamming 1964, Schmid 1970, Staun 1965, Vold 1968). The
greater length of the boars has also been observed in other investigations
(Charette 1961, Prescott and Lamming 1964). On the other hand, reports
vary regarding the growth rates of the boars and barrows. In some investiga-
tions, the boars grew more rapidly than the barrows, as they did here (Schmid
1970, Staun 1965, Winters et al. 1942); in others the growth rates were the
same (Charette 1961), or the barrows grew more rapidly than the boars
(Prescott and Lamming 1964, Winters et al. 1942). Prescott and Lamming

(1964) attributed a decrease in the growth rate of the boars in the later stages
of growth to an insufficiency of protein. In the present study, the restricted
feeding norms limited the rate of growth of the sires; their mean rate was 604
g per day, whereas that of the boars sired by them was 761 g. The restricted



7

feeding norms may have affected the individuals with poor feeding effi-
ciency more strongly than the others, selectively decreasing their rate of growth
and fat thickness. This would partly explain the contradiction between the
rankings made according to fat thickness and growth rate (Tables 1 and 2).

Phenotypic correlations between characteristics of the sires and characteristics
of the boars and barrows in their progeny

Significant correlations existed between the ultrasonic fat measurements of
the sires and the results of the lean cuts analysis made on the carcasses of the
progeny (P < 0.05 —P < 0.001) (Table 4). The correlations of the sires
with the barrows were a little higher than those with the boars, in respect of
meatiness (meat + bone as % of carcass), but generally a little lower in respect
of the absolute values of the lean cuts analysis. However, the differences
between the corresponding correlation coefficients did not prove significant
when the yf test was applied. The correlations between the fat measurements

Table 4. Phenotypic correlations between ultrasonic fat measurements of sires and results of
lean cuts analysis of the most valuable parts of the boar and barrow carcasses (sires 15, progeny
120 + 120).

Fat thickness of sires, mm
Lean cuts analysis of ... ... ... , ~ , ~J withers midback loin sol. right Meanprogeny carcasses ° 4+5

(1) (2) (3) (4) 1,2, 3 2,4, 5 1. 2,3,
~

Meat + bone, g
boars -0.39 -0.29 -0.32 -0.30 -0,37 -0.31 -0.37
barrows -0.33 -0.32 -0.24 -0.27 -0,33 -0.30 -0.33

Fat 4- skin, g
boars +0.25 +0.28 +0.21 +O.lB +0.26 +0.20 +0.25
barrows +0.19 +0.24 +0.20 +0.25 +0.22 +0.24 +0.23

Fat : meat
boars +0.35 +0.34 +0.30 +0.27 +0.36 +0.28 +0.34
barrows +0.31 +0.34 +0.27 +0.32 +0.33 +0.33 +0.34

Meat + bone % of carcass
boars -0.29 -0.20 -0.23 -0.19 -0.27 -0.20 -0.26
barrows —0.33 —0.33 —0.31 —0.35 —0.35 —0.36 —0.37

Fat + skin % of carcass
boars +0.30 +0.33 +0.26 +0.24 +0.32 +0.26 +0.31
barrows +0.26 +0.31 +0.22 +0.27 +0.28 +0.28 +0.28

Carcass score
boars -0.28 -0.26 -0.23 -0.20 -0.28 -0.22 -0.27
barrows -0,26 -0.35 -0.23 -0.30 -0.30 -0.33 -0.31

P < 0.05, r S 0.19; P < 0.01, r S 0.25; P < 0.001, r S 0.32 (d.f. 118).
The homogeneity of the pairs of correlations was tested with the yf test; there were no

statistically significant differences.



8

Table 5. Phenotypic correlations between mean ultrasonic fat measurements of sires and
measurements made on boar and barrow carcasses, and also between lengths and growth rates
of sires and progeny (sires 15, progeny 120 + 120).

Characteristics „

, Boars Barrowssires/progeny

Mean fat thickness /withers +0.15 +0.02
»»» I midback —0.03 —O.Ol
» * * /loin +0.17 +O.OB
* » » /side +O.ll +0.16
* * » /area of longissimus muscle —0.22* —0.24*

Side length/side length, carcass +o.3s*** +0.20*
Growth rate/growth rate (20 —BB kg) +o.3l** +0.13

* P < 0.05, *« P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001.

of the sires and the carcass scores of the progeny were also significant (P < 0.05
P < 0.001). The midback and side fat measurements of the sires showed

slightly closer correlations with the carcass score of the barrows than with that
of the boars, but, here again, the differences were not significant.

The measurements made on the carcass section showed much poorer
correspondence with the characteristics of the sires than the results of the lean
cuts analysis; the ultrasonic fat measurements of the sires correlated significantly
(P < 0.05) only with the cross-sectional area of the longissimus muscle (Table
5). The correlation between the side lengths of the sires and the boars was
closer than that between the side lengths of the sires and the barrows (P <

0.001, P < 0.05). The rate of growth of the sires was significantly correlated
only with that of the boars.

Ranking of sires according to their own phenotype evaluation compared with their
rankings according to the evaluations of the hoars and barrows in their progeny

Since the ranking of an animal determines whether it is selected for breed-
ing, the ranking of the sires made on the basis of their own phenotype evaluation
was compared with those made according to the evaluations of the boars and
barrows in their progeny (Table 6). The values for the carcass and growth
characteristics of the progeny were ranked from best to worst and divided
into three groups. In all the groups, without exception, the boars had more
lean meat and less fat than the barrows, and, with the exception of the
weakest group, the boars also grew more rapidly than the barrows.

From the point of view of breeding, it would be most desirable for the
best group to contain the same sires, whether the ranking was made according
to their own phenotype or according to the evaluations of the boars or barrows
in their progeny. It may be seen in Table 6 that when the criterion chosen
was the absolute amount of meat + bone or fat + skin, or the fat + skin %

of the carcass, 80 % of the best sires were the same (4 out of 5) in rankings
made according to the evaluations of the boars and barrows. Similarly, 80 %

were same when the ranking was made on their own phenotype, except in the



9

case of the amount of meat + bone of the barrows, where only 60 % were the
same (3 out of 5). When the criterion of evaluation was the percentage of meat
+ bone, the fat-to-meat ratio or the carcass score, 60 % correspondence was
obtained between the rankings made on the evaluations of the boars and
barrows, and the correspondence between the rankings according to the
phenotypes of the sires and the evaluations of their progeny ranged from 40
to 80 %. Selection based on the rate of growth of the boars and barrows
gave 60 % correspondence between the best groups, but the correspondence
between these groups and that obtained on the basis of the growth rate of the
sires was only 20—6O %.

In the poorest group, selection according to the carcass scores of the boars
and barrows gave exactly the same result, and gave 60 % correspondence with
selection based on the evaluation of the sires themselves (Table 6). When the
criterion chosen was the absolute or percentage value of meat + bone, or the
rate of growth, 80 % correspondence was obtained between the boars and
barrows and 40 —6O % between the sires and their progeny. With the other
criteria, the correspondence was 60 %.

The correspondence between the results obtained with the different bases
of selection was generally poorer in the middle group than in the two extreme
groups, since shifts of the sires occurred in both directions (Table 6). For example,
sires 10 and 12 were promoted to the best group when selection was based on
the progeny, since the progeny of the former were meatier and those of the
latter had less fat than could be expected from the fat measurements of the
sires themselves. The animals most often demoted to the poorest group were
sires 7 and 8. It may be noted that there were only five litters for sires 10 and
8 (the one male left uncastrated died in each of the other five litters), so that
the basis of the progeny evaluation was somewhat poorer for them than for
the others, and this may have affected the results. The restricted rations fed
to the sires may also have affected the results by preventing the full realization
of their potentialities. This factor presumably exerted the strongest effect
on the correspondence between the growth rates of the sires and their
progeny.

In this study, fairly good correspondence was obtained between the results
of phenotypic evaluation of boars and evaluations of boars and barrows in
their progeny. Correspondence was best when the evaluations of the best and
weakest individuals were compared with the carcass characteristics of their
progeny. The results suggest that barrows can suitably be used in sibling and
progeny evaluations. In the studies of Ettala (1973) and Schmid (1970)
the lean cuts results of barrow sibs explained a significant, though not particu-
larly large, proportion of the variation in carcass value of phenotypically
tested boars. The contribution of the results of the barrow sibs was valuable
since it explained the variation in the data on the meatiness, or meat percen-
tage, of the boars best. The correspondence between the growth rates of the
sires and the barrow progeny was poorer in this study than that of the carcass
characteristics; Schmid (1970) obtained a corresponding result in his sib evalua-
tion.



10

Table
6.

Ranges
of

groupsformed
by

ranking
values
for

characteristics
of

progenyboars
and
barrows
from
best
to

poorest,
and

rankings
of
sires

according
to
values
for

boars
and
barrows
(for
numbering
of
sires,

see
Tables
1

and
2).

Group
I

Group
II

Group
111

Characteristics

Range

Sires

Range

Sires

Range

Sires

Meat
+

bone,
g

boars

16
367-15
596
1,

2,10,
4,

3

15
579-15
005
9,12,
6,

5,11
14

921-14
702

13,14,
7,15,
8

barrows

15
174-14

510
1,4,

2,10,
9

14
479-14
119

6,12,
5,14,11
14

103-12
841
3,13,
7,15,
8

Fat
+

skin,
g

boars

4
194
-4606

3,5,
1,12,
2

4
682-4946
10,
9,

7,13,
4

4
989

-
5
298
15,
6,

8,14,11

barrows

5
029-
5
471
5.

3,12,
4,

2

5
577-
5
823

1,10,
9,

6,14

5
858-
6
384

7,13,11,
8,15

Meat
+

bone,
%

of
carcass

boars

49,3-47,3
1,2,
11,
10,
9

47,0-45,8
4,
3.
12,
5,

6

45,5-44,9
13.
14,
7.
15,
8

barrows

46,1-44,3
1,4,

2,10,
5

44,2-43,3
9,12,
6,

3,14

43,3-39,8
11,13,

7,15,
8

Fat
+

skin,
%

of
carcass

boars

12,7-13,9
3,

5,

1,

2,12

14,2-15,1
10,
9,
7.

4,13

15,2-16,8
15.
6

8,14,11

barrows

15,4-16,7
5.
12,
3,2,
4

16,9-17,8
1,
10,
9,

6,
14

18,1-19,6
13,
7,
11,
8,
15

Fat
:

meat boars

0,27-0,30
3,

1,

5,

2,
10

0,30-0,33
12,

9,4,
7,
13

0,34-0,36
6,
15,
14.
11.
8

barrows

0,35-0,38
5,

1,

4,

2,
12

0,38-0,41
3,
10,
9,

6,
14

0,43-0,48
11,
13,
7,

8,
15

Carcass
score boars

629-604
2,

3,
12,
10,
1

602-567
9,
5.
4,

6,
11

544-518
13,
7,
15,
8,
14

barrows

545-523
5,
10,
4,

1,
12

519-489
6,2,
9.
3,
11

475-404
13,
7.
14.
15,
8

Growth boars

861-781
3,11,
8,10,
6

777-734
1,

2,13,
4,5,

731-672
7,

9,15,12,14

barrows

816-756
11,
3,

1,

2,
8

754-717
10,
13,
15,
4,
5

714-692
7,
12,
6,
14,
9

The
variation
due
to

differences
in

carcass
weight
and
breed
(see
Table
3)
was

eliminated
in

calculating
the

results.



11

REFERENCES

Charette, L. A. 1961. The effects of sex and age of male at castration on growth and carcass
quality of Yorkshire swine. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 41: 30 39.

Ettala, E. 1973. Boars for breeding: A study of methods of evaluation used at testing sta-
tions. J. Scient. Agric. Soc. Finl. 45: 17 119.

Harvey, W. R. 1966. Least-squares analysis of data with unequal subclass numbers. ARS
20 —B. Agric. Res. Service, U. S. Dept, of Agric. 157 p.

Partanen, J. 1965. Sikakantakokeiden tulokset vuodelta 1964. Summary; Results of pig
progeny testing in the year 1964. Sika, 181: 25 51.

Perälä, M., Varo, M,, Partanen, J. & Alaviuhkola, T. 1974. Die Zuverlässigkeit der
Nachkommenbewertung von Schweinen bei Anwendung eines Priifverfahrens mit
vorbestimmter Zeitdauer. Scient. Techn. Conf. on Breed. Eval. of Bulls and Boars.
Cracow, 3.-5. October 1974.

Prescott, J. H. D. & Lamming, G. E. 1964. The effects of castration on meat production in
cattle, sheep and pigs. J. Agric. Sci. 63:341—357.

Schmid, P. 1970. Ein Beitrag zur Eigen- und Geschwisterleistungspriifung beim Schwein.
Diss. 106 p. Zurich.

Sharp, R. N., Noland, P. R. & Johnson, J. B. 1975. Relationships between performance
traits and certain biological properties of testicular tissue in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 41:
87-93.

Staun, H. 1965. Partiel kastration af ornegrise. Landokonomisk Forsogslaboratoriums
efterirsmode 1965:67 71.

Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics. 481 p. New
York.

Uusisalmi, U. 1969. Vorläufige Ergebnisse iiber das Messen der Schlachteigenschaften beim
Schwein. J. Agric. Sci. 41: 50 59.

Varo, M., Perälä, M., Ojala, M. & Varo, H. 1975. Experiences in the evaluation of carcass
value of live pigs by ultrasonic photography. J. Scient. Agric. Soc. Finl. 47: 517 532.

Vold, E. 1968. Kjött-feitt forholdet i slakt av räne og kastrat. Husdyrforsoksmotet pä Norges
Landbrukshogskole 56. 12. 1968. p. 182 185.

Winters, L. M., Comstock, R. E. .Jordan, D. F. & Kiser, O. M. 1942. The effect of sex on
the development of the pig. I. Differences in growth between boars and barrows
by lines of breeding. J. Anim. Sci. 1:41—47.

MS received December 5. 1975.



12

Selostus

Karjujen fenotyyppitestauksen sekä karjuilla ja leikoilia suoritetun
jälkeläisarvostelun vastaavuudesta

Elsi Ettala
Helsingin yliopisto, Kotieläinten jalostustieteen laitos1 )

Tutkimuksessa on ollut 15 koeasemalla testattua karjua, jotka on jälkeläisarvosteltu 120
karju- ja 120 leikkojälkeläisen avulla, yksi karju- ja leikkoporsas kustakin pahnueesta. Karju-
jälkeläiset ovat olleet nopeakasvuisempia (P < 0.01), lihakkaampia (P < 0.001), vähemmän
silavapitoisia (P < 0.001) sekä pitempiä (P < 0.001) kuin leikot.

Isien silavaluotaustulosten sekä karju- ja leikkojälkeläisten ruhon arvokkaimpien osien
paloittelutulosten välillä on ollut merkitsevät fenotyyppiset korrelaatiot (P < 0.05 P <

0.001). Vastaavat korrelaatiot ovat karju- ja leikkojälkeläisillä olleet samanarvoisia. Isien
kasvunopeus on korreloitunut merkitsevästi vain karju jälkeläisten kasvunopeuden kanssa.

Kun isät on asetettu keskimääräisen silavanpaksuuden ja karju- ja leikkojälkeläiset ruhon
paloittelutulosten perusteella paremmuusjärjestykseen ja jaettu kolmeen ryhmään, on par-
haaseen ja heikoimpaan ryhmään saatu kullakin arvostelutavalla 40 —BO %:sesti samat
isäkarjut. Keskimmäisessä ryhmässä samoin kuin kasvunopeuden mukaisessa ryhmittelyssä
on vastaavuus ollut edellämainittuja pienempi.

x ) Nykyinen osoite: Maatalouden tutkimuskeskus. Kotieläinhoidon tutkimuslaitos, Tikkurila.