medigraphic.com

2004, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Vet Mex 2004; 35 (4)

Comparison of five animal models and one sire model for weight at birth of creole chickens

Naal CJM, Segura-Correa JC

Language: English/Spanish
References: 19
Page: 317-325
PDF size: 247.08 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The objectives of this study were to compare five animal models and one sire model and to estimate genetic parameters for body weight at birth from a Creole chicken population in Yucatan, Mexico. Information on body weights was obtained from 758 chickens, progeny of 35 roosters and 140 Creole hens bought from 15 rural communities in Yucatan. Chicks were weighed individually at birth and identified using numbered metallic wing-bands. Roosters and hens were fed with a commercial diet containing 16.5% of crude protein. Data were analyzed by restricted maximum likelihood procedures using five animal models and one sire model. Animal model 1 considered the animal as the only random effect. Models 2 and 3 included, in addition to the additive direct effect of the animal, the common environmental or additive maternal effects, respectively. Model 4 fitted both, the additive maternal and common environmental effects. Model 5 was the same as model 4, except that the covariance between the direct and maternal additive effects was included. The sire model included the rooster and hen within the rooster effects. Animal models 2, 4 and 5 were the best models. Estimates of direct heritability decreased when the maternal additive or common environmental effects were fitted to the model. Estimates of additive direct, maternal and environmental heritabilities from model 5 were: 0.20, 0.18 and 0.35, respectively. The correlation between direct and maternal additive genetic effects was –0.60. This result indicates that the choice of the best animal model should consider the genetic and environmental effects that the reproductive scheme in the population allows, in order to have more precise heritability estimates.


REFERENCES

  1. Falconer DS. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 2nd ed. London: Longman; 1981.

  2. Kinney TR Jr. A summary of reported estimates of heritabilities and of genetic and phenotypic correlations for traits of chickens. Handbook No. 363. Agricultural Research Service, USDA USA. 1969.

  3. Hernández E, Segura JC. Estimación del índice de herencia para peso al nacer en pollos criollos cuello desnudo. Universidad y Ciencia; 1994; 11: 121-124

  4. Henderson CR. Applications of linear models in animal breeding. Ontario Canada: University of Guelph; 1984.

  5. García E. Modificaciones al sistema de clasificación climática de Koeppen. México DF. Instituto de Geografía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; 1988.

  6. Meyer K. DFREML Users Notes. Armidale, Australia; University of New England; 1998.

  7. SAS. SAS/STAT User’s Guide (Version 6.11) Cary NC, USA: SAS Inst. Inc. 1996.

  8. Lynch M, Walsh B. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, 1998.

  9. Hatmann C, Johansson K, Strandberg E, Rydhmer L. Genetic correlations between the maternal genetic effect on chick weight and the direct genetic effects on egg composition traits in a White Leghorn line. Poult Sci 2003;82:1-8.

  10. Aggrey SE, Cheng KM. Genetic and posthatch parental influences on growth of pigeons squabs. J Hered 1993;84:184-187.

  11. North OM, Bell DD. Manual de producción avícola. 3a ed México DF: El Manual Moderno, 1993.

  12. Pinchasov Y. Relationship between weight of hatching eggs and subsequent early performance of broiler chicks. Br Poult Sci 1991;32:109-115.

  13. 13.Tullet SG, Burton GF. Factors affecting the weight and water status of the chick at hatch. Br Poult Sci 1982;23:361-369.

  14. Robinson DL. Models which explain negative correlations between direct and maternal genetic effects. Livest Prod Sci 1996;45:111-122.

  15. Diop M, Van Vleck LD. Estimates of genetic parameters for growth traits of Gobra cattle. J Anim Sci 1998;66:349-355

  16. Maria GA, Boldman KG, Van Vleck LD. Estimates of variances due to direct and maternal effects for growth traits of Romanov sheep. J Anim Sci 1993;71:845-849.

  17. Tosh JJ, Kemp RA. Estimation of variance components for lamb weights in three sheep populations. J Anim Sci 1994;72:1184-1190.

  18. Meyer K. Variance components due to direct and maternal effect for growth traits in Australian beef cattle. Livest Prod Sci 1992;31:179-188.

  19. Al-Shorepy SA, Notter DR. Genetic parameters for lamb birth weight in spring and autumn lambing. J Anim Sci 1998;67:322-327.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com