Date of this Version
A 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/l00 kg lean (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 benefited from superiority in components of both sow and pig performance.