Simulation of Genetic Changes in Life Cycle Efficiency of Pork Production. I. A Bioeconomic Model

Tess, M. W.; Bennett, G. L.; Dickerson, G. E.

doi:10.2527/jas1983.562336x

Cited by 62 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Management options simulated were 28-d weaning and a maximum of three parities/female, because these were found near optimum by Tess et al (1983a). A maximum of 70% of available gilts and boars were used as replacements.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…weight to determine input/output efficiency ratios, discounting price of surplus sow lean by 21% and of live weight by 13% (Tess et al, (1983a). Efficiency of live weight production (EWW) was based on marketing pigs at 100 kg live weight.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A bioeeonomic model of pork production (Tess et al, 1983a) was used to evaluate efficiency of these pork production systems. Management options simulated were 28-d weaning and a maximum of three parities/female, because these were found near optimum by Tess et al (1983a).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other small differences are caused by different mean performance levels, especially the lower purebred level for MILK compared with the crossbred level used by Tess et al (1983a).…”

Section: Effects Of Traits On Breed Roles In Crossingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Simulation of Breed and Crossbreeding Effects on Costs of Pork Production

Bennett

Tess

Dickerson

et al. 1983

Journal of Animal Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryA bio-economic model of swine production was used to simulate expected performance effects of breeds in alternative breeding systems on total costs/100 kg of live weight (EWW) or/lO0 kg Iean (ELW) for marketing at 100 kg live weight and on costs/100 kg lean for marketing at mean 185-d weight (ELA). Effects of heterosis and of six U.S. breeds were simulated for integrated industry purebred (P), two-breed specific (2S), backcross (2B) and rotation cross (2R), and three-breed specific (3S) and rotation cross (3R) breeding systems. Traits considered were age at puberty (-PUB), conception rate (CR), litter size born alive (NBA), preweaning viability (VIAB), milk production (MILK), age at 100 kg live weight (--DAYS) and empty body fat percentage (-FAT). Cost reductions from crossbreeding systems were greater for ELA than for ELW or EWW, ranging from --3 to --5% for 2S, -6 to -7% for 2B and 2R, and -7 to -9% for 3S and 3R. Reductions in nonfeed costs were much greater than those in feed costs for EWW and ELW (-4 to -12% vs -2 to -4%), and especially for ELA (-9 to --17% vs --1 to --2%). Order of maternal trait importance in ranking breeds was NBA, VIAB, CR, MILK and -PUB for P, 2R and 3R systems and as maternal breeds in 2S and 3S systems. For cost of lean, -FAT was as important as NBA in all except maternal breed roles. For ELA, --DAYS was important in all breed roles, but not for EWW and ELW, especially in maternal breed roles. In ranking paternal breeds for use in 2S and 3S systems, the important traits were only VIAB for EWW, VIAB and -FAT for ELW, but VIAB,-FAT and -DAYS for ELA. Existing breeds ranked differently as paternal breeds than as maternal or general purpose breeds. Complementary paternal-maternal effects permitted greater cost reductions from best 3S (-7 to -10%) than from best 3R (--6 to -8%) breed combinations. Maternal breeds in crosses benefitted from superiority in components of both sow and pig performance.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other small differences are caused by different mean performance levels, especially the lower purebred level for MILK compared with the crossbred level used by Tess et al (1983a).…”

Section: Effects Of Traits On Breed Roles In Crossingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Simulation of Breed and Crossbreeding Effects on Costs of Pork Production

Bennett

Tess

Dickerson

et al. 1983

Journal of Animal Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…56, No. 4, 1983 40% of all costs (Tess et al, 1983a), the effect of heterosis on efficiency is described better by the reduction in total cost of production.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulation of Heterosis Effects on Costs of Pork Production

Bennnett¹,

Tess²,

Dickerson³

et al. 1983

Journal of Animal Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryIndividual plus maternal heterotic effects on swine production were simulated with a bioeconomic model by changing performance levels of eight traits: -8 d in age at puberty, +3% in conception rate, +.94 in pigs born/litter, +.035 kg in pig birth weight, +2.05 Mcal'sow-l-d -l in maximum milk output, +8% in preweaning survival, +10.8% in protein growth rate and +17.3% in fat growth rate. Associated heterosis simulated for other traits, such as weaning weights and postweaning gain/feed, was similar to experimental results. Effects of heterosis on biological (feed Mcal/kg) and economic ($/kg) costs were evaluated by simulating two-and three-breed crosses and purebred production. Pig heterosis reduced $/kg lean or $/kg live weight by 4% for marketing at 100 kg, and by 6% for $/kg of lean and 8% for $/kg of live weight for marketing at average 185-d weight. output by increasing output/litter were responsible for most effects of heterosis on $/kg. However, heterosis in growth rate was important for feed Mcal/kg of lean marketed at 100 kg, and for feed Mcal/kg of live weight marketed at either 100 kg or at 185-d weight. Nonfeed costs/kg lean or live weight marketed at 100 kg were reduced more than feed costs by pig heterosis (-5 or -6 vs -2 or -3%) and by sow heterosis (-8 vs -1 or -2%). Effects of pig heterosis on nonfeed costs were increased to -12 or -14% by marketing at mean 185-d weight. Percentage reductions in total costs from heterosis were about one-third as large as corresponding increases in output/litter at market age.

show abstract

A Bioeconomic Model by Quantitative Biology to Estimate Swine Production

Yuan

Surong²,

Wang

et al.

Computer and Computing Technologies in Agriculture, Volume I

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A bioeconomic computer model was constructed to simulate biological and economic inputs and outputs for life cycle swine production. Parameters and relationships used in model were developed and verified by comparison with experimental results in the literature. The bioeconomic model was constructed by several modules such as growth and development, pregnancy, lactation, and replacement gilt etc. The result is: (1) the bioeconomic computer model was efficient way to describe pig production system and research factors' effect and their interactions. (2) Traits in the model were: oestrus traits; mature weight and feed requirements of sows;

show abstract

Simulation of Genetic Changes in Life Cycle Efficiency of Pork Production. I. A Bioeconomic Model

Cited by 62 publications

References 0 publications

Simulation of Breed and Crossbreeding Effects on Costs of Pork Production

Simulation of Breed and Crossbreeding Effects on Costs of Pork Production

Simulation of Heterosis Effects on Costs of Pork Production

A Bioeconomic Model by Quantitative Biology to Estimate Swine Production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About