Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:07:51.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic variation of egg production traits in purebred and crossbred laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

B. Besbes  and
J. P. Gibson
B. Besbes
Affiliation:
Hubbard-ISA, B.P 27, 35220 Chateaubourg, France
J. P. Gibson
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Improvement for Livestock, Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Get access

Abstract

Heritabilities, dominance variation and genetic correlations (rpc) among purebred and crossbred performance were estimated for egg production (number of eggs produced between 19 and 25, 26 and 38 and 26 and 54 weeks of age) and egg quality traits (average egg weight, shell strength) in four generations of two nucleus lines of egg-laying chickens and their cross, all reared in similar environments. The within-line genetic parameters were estimated using method R applied to an animal model (approach 1) and tilde-hat approximation to restricted maximum likelihood applied to a sire-dam model (approach 2). The genetic correlation between purebred and crossbred performance as well as the crossbred heritabilities were estimated based on a multivariate sire-dam model accounting for all relationships. For egg numbers and shell strength, the purebred heritabilities were low to moderate (0·12 to 0·42). They were higher when estimated under an additive model (0·25 to 0·51) but, in general, lower than the crossbred heritabilities. For egg weight, the heritabilities were always high (0·6 to 0·7). The ratio of dominance variance to total genetic variance varied between 11 and 36% with approach 1 and 5 and 56% with approach 2, indicating a large partial dominance for egg number traits and shell strength but also the difficulty of accurately estimating the dominance variance. For these traits, the estimates of the correlation between purebred and crossbred performance, rpc, were quite high (0·8 to 0·94) which contradicts the theory that traits with larger dominance and/or difference between purebred and crossbred heritabilities present lower rpc. These high rpc estimates, coupled with the absence of obvious heterosis, indicate little advantage to be gained from use of crossbred data in genetic improvement, where pure lines and crossbreds are reared in a similar non-stressful environment.

Keywords

crossbreedingegg productiongenetic parameterspoultry
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , April 1999 , pp. 433 - 439
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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

Abplanalp, H. A. 1990. Inbreeding. In Poultry breeding and genetics (ed. Crawford, R. D.), pp. 955–984. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bell, A. E. 1982. Selection for heterosis — results with laboratory and domestic animals. Proceedings of the second world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Madrid, vol. 6, pp. 206–227.Google Scholar
Bernon, D.E and Chambers, J. R. 1985.Maternal and sex-linked genetic effects in broiler parent stocks. Poultry Science 64: 29–38.Google Scholar
Besbes, B., Ducrocq, V., Foulley, J. L., Protais, M., Tavernier, A., Tixier-Boichard, M. and Beaumont, C. 1992. Estimation of genetic parameters of egg production traits of laying hens by restricted maximum likelihood applied to a multiple-trait reduced animal model. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 24: 539–552.Google Scholar
Besbes, B., Ducrocq, V., Foulley, J. L., Protais, M., Tavernier, A., Tixier-Boichard, M. and Beaumont, C. 1993. Box-Сох transformation of egg-production traits of laying hens to improve genetic parameter estimation and breeding evaluation. Livestock Production Science 33: 313–326.Google Scholar
Chang, H. A. 1988. Studies on estimation of genetic variances under non-additive gene action. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
Colleau, J. J., Beaumont, C. and Regaldo, D. 1989. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation of genetic parameters for type traits in Normand cattle breed. Livestock Production Science 23: 47–66.Google Scholar
Fairfull, R. W. 1990. Heterosis. In Poultry breeding and genetics (ed. Crawford, R. D.), pp. 913–933. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Fairfull, R. W. and Gowe, R. S. 1986. Use of breed resources for poultry egg and meat production. Proceedings of the third world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Lincoln, vol. 10, pp. 242–256.Google Scholar
Fairfull, R. W. and Gowe, R. S. 1990. Genetics of egg population in chickens. In Poultry breeding and genetics (ed. Crawford, R. D.), pp. 705–759. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1981. Introduction to quantitative genetics, second edition. Longman, New York.Google Scholar
Flock, D. K., Ameli, H. and Glodek, P. 1991. Inbreeding and heterosis effects on quantitative traits in a white leghorn population under long-term reciprocal recurrent selection. British Poultry Science 32: 451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groeneveld, E. 1994. A reparametrization to improve numerical optimization in multivariate REML (co)variance component estimation. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 26: 537–545.Google Scholar
Hoeschele, I. and VanRaden, P. M. 1991. Rapid inversion of dominance relationship matrices for noninbred populations by including sire by dam subclass effects. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 557–569.Google Scholar
Misztal, I. 1997. Estimation of variance components with large-scale dominance models. Journal of Dairy Science 80: 965–974.Google Scholar
Orozco, F. 1976. Heterosis and genotype-environment interaction: theoretical and experimental aspects. In Ľhétérosis: aspects théoriques et expérimentaux. Bulletin technique du dÈpartement de génétique animale no. 24, pp. 43–52.Google Scholar
Sellier, P. 1982. Selecting populations for use in crossbreeding. Proceedings of the second world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Madrid, vol. 6, pp. 15–49.Google Scholar
Sheridan, A. K. and Randall, M. C. 1977. Heterosis for egg production in White Leghorn Australorp crosses. British Poultry Science 18: 69–77.Google Scholar
Uimari, P. and Gibson, J. 1998. The value of crossbreeding information in selection of poultry under a dominance model. Animal Science 66: 519–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanRaden, P. M. and Hoeschele, I. 1991. Rapid inversion of additive by additive relationship matrices by including sire-dam combination effects. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 570–579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wei, M. and Werf, J. H. J.van der. 1993. Animal model estimation of additive and dominance variances in egg production traits of poultry. Journal of Animal Science 71: 57–65.Google Scholar
Wei, M. and Werf, J. H. J.van der. 1995. Genetic correlation and heritabilities for purebred and crossbred performance in poultry egg production traits. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2220–2226.Google Scholar
Wei, M., Werf, J. H. J.van der and Brascamp, E.W. 1991. Relationship between purebred and crossbred parameters. II. Genetic correlation between purebred and crossbred performance under the model with two loci. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 108: 262–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar