Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:12:14.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implications of genetic-environmental interaction in animal breeding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 1962

G. E. Dickerson
G. E. Dickerson
Affiliation:
Kimber Farms, Inc., Fremont, California, U.S.A.
Get access

Extract

This report is an attempt to interpret evidence concerning geneticenvironmental interaction as it relates to the effectiveness of selection.

Methods of estimating genetic-environmental interaction were investigated with the conclusion that the standard analysis of variance is a satisfactory tool provided (1) the interaction component of variance is adjusted for important variation between environments in the scale of genetic effects and (2) the variance component for the average effects of genetic groups is recognised as equivalent to the average covariance of the same genetic group in different environments (i.e. ) to include the real possibility of negative genetic correlation.

It is shown that (1) response to selection for improved average performance over varying environments (ΔGt) is proportional to the genetic correlation between expressions of the same genotype in different environments (rG), that (2) gain in ΔGi, from measuring performance in k environments is proportional to if k times as many animals are tested, but to if total numbers per genotypic class (nk) are held constant, where g2 is heritability of individual variation within environments and rG is the correlation between the phenotypic expressions of the same genotype in different environments.

Evidence is presented that (1) variations among poultry-farm environments in California cause important, but largely unpredictable, shifts in ranking of genetic stocks for egg production, and (2) improved accuracy in measuring genetic differences in average performance across environments probably justifies utilising a sample of 5 to 10 farms representing the range of environments for which the stock is bred.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , February 1962 , pp. 47 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1962

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

1Comstock, R. E., 1960. Dominance, genotype-environment interaction and homeostasis. Biometrical Genetics, p. 3. Pergamon Press, New York.Google Scholar
2Dickerson, G. E., 1952. Inbred lines for heterosis tests? Ch. 21 of Heterosis, la. State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
3Dickerson, G. E., 1955. Genetic slippage in response to selection for multiple objectives. Cold Spring Harbor Sympos. Quant. Biol., 20: 213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Dickerson, G. E., 1961a. Effectiveness of selection for animal improvement. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Symposium, Germ Plasm Resources, p. 161. AAAS, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
5Dickerson, G. E., 1961b. Biological interpretation of the genetic parameters of populations. Sympos. Stat. Genetics and Plant Breeding (In press).Google Scholar
6Dickerson, G. E. & Abplanalp, H., 1956. Sources of variation in performance of entries in the 4th, 5th and 6th California random sample egg production tests. Proc. 9th Pacific Chicken and Turkey Breeders' Round Table, 9: 67.Google Scholar
7Dickerson, G. E., Plunn, C. T., Chapman, A. B., Kottman, R. M., Krider, J. L., Warwick, E. J. & Whatley, J. A., 1954. Evaluation of selection in developing inbred lines of swine. No. Cent. Reg. Publ. No. 38, Mo. Res. Bull. No. 551.Google Scholar
8Falconer, D. S., 1952. The problem of environment and selection. Amer. Nat., 86: 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Falconer, D. S., 1960. Selection of mice for growth on high and low planes of nutrition. Genet. Res., Camb., 1: 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Gowe, R. S., 1956. Environment and poultry breeding problems. 2. PoultrySci., 35: 430.Google Scholar
11Gowe, R. S. & Wakely, W. J., 1954. Environment and poultry breeding problems. 1. Poultry Sci., 33: 691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Hammond, John, 1947. Animal breeding in relation to nutrition and environmental conditions. Biol. Rev., 22: 195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Hammond, John, 1951. Adaptation of livestock to new environments. Proc. U. N. Sci. Resources Conf., 6: 414.Google Scholar
14Hazel, L. N., 1943. The genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics, 28: 476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Hill, J. F. & Nordskog, W. A., 1956. Efficiency of performance testing in poultry. Poultry Sci., 35: 256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Hutt, F. B., Cole, R. K. & Bruckner, J. H., 1945. A test of fowls bred for resistance to lymphomatosis. Poultry Sci., 24: 564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Lamoreux, W. F. & Hutt, F. B., 1948. Genetic resistance to a deficiency of ribofiavin in the chick. Poultry Sci., 27: 334.Google Scholar
18Lerner, I. M., 1954. Genetic Homeostasis. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
19Lowry, D. C, Lerner, I. M. & Taylor, L. W., 1956. Intraflock genetic merit under floor and cage managements. Poultry Sci., 35: 1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Nordskog, A. W. & Kempthorne, O., 1960. Importance of genotype-environment interactions in random sample poultry tests. Biometrical Genetics, p. 159. Pergamon Press, New York.Google Scholar
21Robertson, A., 1959. The sampling variance of the genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics, 15: 469.Google Scholar