Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:12:57.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crossbreeding effects on rabbit reproduction from four maternal lines of rabbits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2016

M. Ragab ,
J. P. Sánchez ,
C. Mínguez  and
M. Baselga
M. Ragab*
Affiliation:
Genetica i Millora Animal, Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries, Torre Marimon s/n, 08140 Caldes de Montbui, Barcelona, Spain Poultry Production Department, Kafr El-Sheikh University, 33516 Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt
J. P. Sánchez
Affiliation:
Genetica i Millora Animal, Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries, Torre Marimon s/n, 08140 Caldes de Montbui, Barcelona, Spain
C. Mínguez
Affiliation:
Carrera de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Calle Vieja 12-30 y Elia Luit, Cuenca, Ecuador
M. Baselga
Affiliation:
Departamento Ciencia Animal, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, Valencia 46022, Spain
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Litter size is essential for an efficient production of rabbit meat. A diallel cross between four maternal lines was carried out and the analysis of the components of litter size has been already done. This paper presents the analysis of litter size traits themselves (total born (TB), number born alive (NBA), number weaned (NW)) and kindling interval (KI), that complete the analysis of the reproductive performance. The 16 genetic groups were distributed in four Spanish farms. The V line was present in all farms in order to be used as reference group. A total of 34 546 parities from 7111 does, were analysed. The crossbreeding parameters were estimated according to Dickerson model. The differences between lines performance were of low magnitude and not significant for litter size traits. The LP line showed the shortest KI followed by H respect to lines A and V. These differences reflected the differences between direct and maternal genetic effects. The differences between the average of all crosses and line V were found to be significant and seemed to be important, being 0.46 for TB, 0.56 for NBA, 0.75 for NW and −2.21 days for KI. The differences between reciprocal crosses for litter size were of low magnitude and non-significant, which indicate that the maternal effects are not important between these lines. In general, the lines did not show significant differences in direct and maternal genetic effects for TB, NBA and NW but there were some significant differences for KI, which ranged from 1.54 to 6.85 days in direct effects and from 0.63 to 3.38 days for maternal effects. A positive and, in some cases, relevant heterosis was found. The largest heterosis was for TB in the HV cross (1.05 rabbits), followed by the AH (0.74 rabbits), AV (0.57 rabbits) and LH (0.55 rabbits) crosses. For NBA, significant heterosis was found in HV (1.11 rabbits) and AV (0.49 rabbits) and for NW in AV (0.90 rabbits), LH (0.70 rabbits) and LV (0.58 rabbits). Favourable and significant heterosis for KI was found in AV and LV crosses, whereas it was unfavourable in AL and in LH. The more recommended crosses were AV and LH, showing the greatest performances on NW, while the cross HV, which shows the greatest performances an NBA, could be highly recommended when cross-fostering is practised to equalise litter sizes after birth, in this situation the lower NW performance observed could be improved.

Keywords

diallelic crosskindling intervallitter sizematernal linesrabbits
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 7 , July 2016 , pp. 1086 - 1092
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Al-Saef, AM, Khalil, MH, Al-Homidan, AH, Al-Dobaib, SN, Al-Sobayil, KA, García, ML and Baselga, M 2008. Crossbreeding effects for litter and lactation traits in a Saudi project to develop new lines of rabbits suitable for hot climates. Livestock Science 118, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baselga, M 2004. Genetic improvement of meat rabbits. Programmes and diffusion. In Proceedings of the 8th World Rabbit Congress, 7–10 September, Puebla, Mexico, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Baselga, M, García, ML, Sánchez, JP, Vicente, JS and Lavara, R 2003. Analysis of reproductive traits in crosses among maternal lines of rabbits. Animal 52, 473–479.Google Scholar
Brun, JM and Baselga, M 2005. Analysis of reproductive performances during the formation of a rabbit synthetic strain. World Rabbit Science 13, 239–252.Google Scholar
Brun, JM and Saleil, G 1994. Une estimation, en fermes, de l’heterosis sur les performances de reproduction entre les souches de lapin INRA A2066 et A1077. In Proceedings of the 6èmes Journées de la Recherche Cunicole, 6–7 December, La Rochelle, France, pp. 203–210.Google Scholar
Cartuche, L, Pascual, M, Gómez, EA and Blasco, A 2014. Economic weights in rabbit meat production. World Rabbit Science 22, 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, C, Baselga, M, Lobera, J, Cervera, C and Pascual, JJ 2004. Evaluating response to selection and nutritional needs in a three way cross of rabbits. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 121, 186–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, GE 1969. Experimental approaches in utilizing breed resources. Animal Breeding Abstract 37, 191–202.Google Scholar
Eisen, EJ, Hörstgen-Schwark, G, Saxton, AM and Bandy, TR 1983. Genetic interpretation and analysis of diallel crosses with animals. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 65, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estany, J, Baselga, M, Blasco, A and Camacho, J 1989. Mixed model methodology for the estimation of genetic response to selection in litter size of rabbits. Livestock Production Science 21, 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, ML and Baselga, M 2002a. Estimation of genetic response to selection in litter size of rabbits using a cryopreserved control population. Livestock Production Science 74, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, ML and Baselga, M 2002b. Genetic response to selection for reproductive performance in a maternal line of rabbits. World Rabbit Science 10, 71–76.Google Scholar
Garreau, H, Piles, M, Larzul, C, Baselga, M and de Rochambeau, H 2004. Selection of maternal lines: last results and prospects. In Proceedings of the 8th World Rabbit Congress, 7–10 September, Puebla, Mexico, pp. 14–25.Google Scholar
Gómez, EA, Rafel, O, Ramón, J and Baselga, M 1996. A genetic study of a line selected on litter size at weaning. In Proceedings of the 6th World Rabbit Congress, 9–12 July, Toulouse, France, 2, pp. 289–292.Google Scholar
Horstgen-Schwark, G, Eisen, EJ, Saxton, AM and Bandy, TR 1984. Reproductive performance in a diallel cross among lines of mice selected for litter size and body weight. Journal of Animal Science 58, 846–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iraqi, MM, Ibrahim, MK, Hassan, NSH and El-Deghadi, AS 2006. Evaluation of litter traits in purebred and crossbred rabbits raised under Egyptian conditions. Livestock Research for Rural Development 18, article no. 83. Retrieved July 4, 2015, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/6/iraq18083.htm.Google Scholar
Johnson, RK 1981. Crossbreeding in swine: experimental results. Journal of Animal Science 52, 906–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalil, MH and Afifi, EA 2000. Heterosis, maternal and direct additive effects for litter performance and postweaning growth in Gabali rabbits and their F1 crosses with New Zealand White. In Proceedings of the 7th World Rabbit Congress, 4–7 July, Valencia, Spain, A, pp. 431–437.Google Scholar
Khalil, MH, Afifi, EA, Youssef, YM and Khadr, AF 1995. Heterosis, maternal and direct genetic effects for litter performance and reproductive intervals in rabbit crosses. World Rabbit Science 3, 99–105.Google Scholar
Long, CR 1980. Crossbreeding for beef production: experimental results. Journal of Animal Science 51, 1197–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantovani, R, Sartori, A, Mezzadri, M and Lenarduzzi, M 2008. Genetics of maternal traits in a new synthetic rabbit line under selection. In Proceedings of the 9th World Rabbit Congress, 10–13 June, Verona, Italy, pp. 169–174.Google Scholar
Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Strabel, T, Auvray, B, Druet, T and Lee, DH 2002. BLUPF90 and related programs (BGF90). In Proceedings of the 7th World Congreso Genetics Applied Livestock Production, 19–23 August, Montpellier, France, 28-07.Google Scholar
Nofal, RY, Tõth, S and Virág, GY 1996. Evaluation of seven breed groups of rabbits for litter traits. In Proceedings of the 6th World Rabbit Congress, 9–12 July, Toulouse, France, pp. 335–339.Google Scholar
Orengo, J, Gómez, E, Piles, M, Ramón, J and Rafel, O 2003. Étude des caractères de reproduction en croisement entre trois lignées femelles espagnoles. In Proceedings of the 10émes Journées de la Recherche Cunicole, 19–20 November, Paris, France, pp. 57–60.Google Scholar
Piles, M, García, ML, Rafel, O, Ramón, J and Baselga, M 2006. Genetics of litter size in three maternal lines of rabbits: repeatability versus multiple-trait models. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2309–2315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ragab, M and Baselga, M 2011. A comparison of reproductive traits of four maternal lines of rabbits selected for litter size at weaning and founded on different criteria. Livestock Science 136, 201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragab, M, Sánchez, JP and Baselga, M 2015. Effective population size and inbreeding depression on litter size in rabbits. A case study. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 132, 68–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ragab, M, Sánchez, JP, Mínguez, C, Vicente, JS and Baselga, M 2014. Litter size components in a full diallel cross of four maternal lines of rabbits. Journal of Animal Science 92, 3231–3236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochambeau, H, de, Bolet, G and Tudela, F 1994. Long-term selection-comparison of two rabbit strains. In Proceedings of the 5th World Congress Genetics Applied Livestock Production, 7–12 August, Guelph, Canada, pp. 257–260.Google Scholar
Sánchez, JP, Theilgaard, P, Mínguez, C and Baselga, M 2008. Constitution and evaluation of a long-lived productive rabbit line. Journal of Animal Science 86, 515–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savietto, D, Cervera, C, Blas, E, Baselga, M, Larsen, T, Friggens, NC and Pascual, JJ 2013. Environmental sensitivity differs between rabbit lines selected for reproductive intensity and longevity. Animal 7, 1969–1977.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theilgaard, P, Sánchez, JP, Pascual, JJ, Berg, P, Friggens, N and Baselga, M 2007. Late reproductive senescence in a rabbit line hyper selected for reproductive longevity, and its association with body reserves. Genetic Selection Evolution 39, 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verrier, E, Colleau, JJ and Foulley, JL 1990. Predicting cumulated response to directional selection in finite panmictic populations. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 79, 833–840.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wray, NR and Thompson, R 1990. Prediction of rates of inbreeding in selected populations. Genetical Research 55, 41–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wray, NR, Woolliams, JA and Thompson, R 1990. Methods for predicting rates of inbreeding in selected populations. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 80, 503–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, Y 2003. Developing marker-assisted selection strategies for breeding hybrid rice. Plant Breeding Reviews 23, 73–174.Google Scholar
Youssef, YK, Iraqi, MM, El-Raffa, AM, Afifi, EA, Khalil, MH, García, ML and Baselga, M 2008. A joint project to synthesize new lines of rabbits in Egypt and Saudi Arabia: emphasis for results and prospects. In Proceedings of the 9th World Rabbit Congress, 10–13 June, Verona, Italy, pp. 1637–1642.Google Scholar