Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T09:02:47.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heritability of chick viability in a White Wyandotte flock

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. W. Hale
R. W. Hale
Affiliation:
Queen's University of Belfast and Ministry of Agriculture, Northern Ireland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A short account is given of 7 years' breeding for high and low brooder-house viability in a White Wyandotte flock, in which mortality, to 8 weeks of age in most years, varied from almost 50% in the early years to 10% in the last year (1947). When separate sections of the flock were established, the lowviability section showed consistently greater rearing losses than the high-viability section.

Brooder house viability appeared to have a relatively low additive heritability, when estimated from such of the records as were suitable, the pooled estimate from differences amongst sires' progenies being only about 0·07. There was definite evidence that mortality was affected by the common maternal origin of full sibs, the heritability estimated from differences amongst full-sib progenies of dams mated to the same sire being significantly higher than that estimated from differences amongst the half-sib progenies of the sires.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 1954 , pp. 221 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

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

REFERENCES

Blyth, J. S. S. (1952). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 20, 133.Google Scholar
Bostian, C. H. & Dearstyne, R. S. (1944). Tech. Bull. N. C. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 79.Google Scholar
Bryant, R. L. (1946). Tech. Bull. Va Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 99.Google Scholar
Common, R. H., Kerr, W. R. & Lamont, H. G. (1945). Vet. Rec. 57, 45.Google Scholar
Dudley, F. J. (1934). Experiments on inbreeding poultry. Bull. Minist. Agric, Lond., no. 83.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. C. (1923). Bull. Conn. Agric.Exp. Sta. no. 111.Google Scholar
Hale, R. W. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, (1944). Bull. Mass. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 420.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, F. P. (1949). Poult. Sci. 28, 770.Google Scholar
Jull, M. A. (1933). J. Heredity, 24, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, I. M. (1950). Population Genetics and Animal Improvement. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lush, J. L., Lamobeux, W. F. & Hazel, L. N. (1948). Poult. Sci. 27, 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, T. B. (1945). J. Agric. Sci. 35, 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marble, D. R. (1939). Bull. Pa Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 377.Google Scholar
Mueller, D. C. (1944). Cornell University Thesis: information supplied in personal communication by Prof. F. B. Hutt.Google Scholar
Osborne, R. (1952). Private communication.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. & Lerner, I. M. (1949). Genetics, 34, 395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temperton, H. & Bythell, D. W. P. (1944). Vet. Rec. 56, 409.Google Scholar
Waters, N. F., Groschke, A. C. & Scott, H. M. (1950). Poult. Sci. 29, 685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, N. F. & Lambert, W. V. (1936). Res. Bull, la Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 202.Google Scholar
Wilson, W. O. (1948). Poult. Sci. 27, 727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar