Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:40:23.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inheritance of duration of fertility in female common ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) inseminated in pure breeding or in inter-generic crossbreeding with Muscovy drakes (Cairina moschata)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

J. M. Brun ,
M. M. Mialon ,
N. Sellier ,
J. P. Brillard  and
R. Rouvier
J. M. Brun*
Affiliation:
INRA, UR624, Station d'Amélioration Génétique des Animaux, BP 52627, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan Cedex, France
M. M. Mialon
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213, Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
N. Sellier
Affiliation:
INRA, UR0083, Unité de Recherches Avicoles, 37380 Nouzilly, France
J. P. Brillard
Affiliation:
INRA, UR0083, Unité de Recherches Avicoles, 37380 Nouzilly, France
R. Rouvier
Affiliation:
INRA, UR624, Station d'Amélioration Génétique des Animaux, BP 52627, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan Cedex, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Ducks (common, Muscovy and mule ducks) are the third most important bird species in animal production for human consumption worldwide. Our study aimed to improve the efficiency of mule duck breeding, thus contributing to the efficiency of food production in general. In the common duck, females can be bred either with males of the same species (i.e. in pure breeding (PB) subscript p) or in inter-generic crossbreeding (CB; subscript c) with Muscovy drakes to produce the hybrid mule duck. The aim of the present study was to estimate the genetic parameters of several indicators of duration of fertility, considered to be a trait of the female duck, within and between breeding schemes and, in particular, to estimate the purebred–crossbred genetic correlation (rgpc). These indicators were maximum duration of fertility (MD), that is, the time interval between insemination and the last fertilised egg, the number of fertile eggs (F) and of hatched ducklings (H) after a single artificial insemination (AI), and the fertility rate over days 2 to 12 after AI (F2,12), taking three sub-periods (F2,4, F5,8, F9,12) into account. A total of 494 females and 2655 inseminations were involved. PB resulted in longer duration of fertility (MDp = 8.1 v.MDc = 6.4 days). Heritability (h2) was higher for MDp (estimate ± s.e.: 0.27 ± 0.04) than for MDc (0.15 ± 0.04), but both traits were highly correlated with each other (rgpc = 0.85 ± 0.07). Fp and Fc had similar heritability (h2 around 0.24) and displayed a high genetic correlation (0.78 ± 0.07). The same was true for Hp and Hc (h2 around 0.17 and rgpc = 0.88 ± 0.05). The heritability estimates were 0.24 ± 0.03 for F2,12p and 0.20 ± 0.04 for F2,12c, with a 0.80 ± 0.07 genetic correlation between each other. Permanent environmental effects influenced MDp far less than MDc, Fp less than Fc, but Hp and Hc to the same extent. The high values for rgpc (>0.78) indicated that the same genes are involved in the duration of fertility for both PB and CB. Unlike CB, initial fertility for PB (F2,4p) was not correlated to overall fertility rate and to duration of fertility and probably involves different genes, if any. In both breeding schemes, indirect selection on F would be better than direct selection on H to improve H, and easier to implement than selection on MD. Moreover, any gain in one breeding scheme will have its correlated counterpart in the other one, because of the high values of rgpc.

Keywords

common duckhybridisationduration of fertilityheritabilitygenetic correlation
Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 11 , November 2012 , pp. 1731 - 1737
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Beaumont, C 1992. Genetic parameters of the duration of fertility in hens. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72, 193–201.Google Scholar
Beaumont, C, Millet, N, Le Bihan-Duval, E, Kipi, A, Dupuy, V 1992. Comparison of various characteristics of duration of fertility in hens. British Poultry Science 33, 649–661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brillard, JP, Beaumont, C, Scheller, MF 1998. Physiological responses of hens divergently selected on the number of chicks obtained from a single insemination. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 114, 111–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brun, JM 1982. Interactions géniteur × population des partenaires. I. – Définition d'indicateurs. Annales de Génétique et Sélection Animale 14, 463–480.Google Scholar
Brun, JM, Larzul, C 2003. Inheritance of reproductive traits of female common ducks (Anas Platyrhynchos) in pure breeding and in inter-generic crossbreeding with Muscovy ducks (Cairina Moschata). British Poultry Science 44, 1–6.Google Scholar
Brun, JM, Mialon-Richard, MM, Dubos, F, Guy, G 2006. Réponses à une sélection sur la durée de la période fertile (évaluée sur la survie de l'embryon) de la cane commune inséminée avec de la semence de Barbarie. Conference at the 7èmes Journées de la Recherche sur les Palmipèdes à Foie Gras, Arcachon, France, 4 pp.Google Scholar
Brun, JM, Richard, MM, Marie-Etancelin, C, Rouvier, R, Larzul, C 2005. Le canard mulard: déterminisme génétique d'un hybride intergénérique. INRA Productions Animales 18, 295–308.Google Scholar
Brun, JM, Mialon-Richard, MM, Sellier, N, Batellier, F, Brillard, JP 2008. Duration of fertility and hatchability of the common duck (Anas Platyrhynchos) in pure- or crossbreeding with Muscovy drakes (Cairina Moschata). Theriogenology 69, 983–989.Google Scholar
Cheng, YS, Rouvier, R, Poivey, JP, Tai, JJL, Tai, C, Huang, SC 2002. Selection responses for the number of fertile eggs of the Brown Tsaiya duck (Anas Platyrhynchos) after a single insemination with pooled Muscovy (Cairina Moschata) semen. Genetics Selection Evolution 34, 597–611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, YS, Rouvier, R, Poivey, JP, Liu, HL, Huang, SC, Huang, YC, Liao, CW, Tai, JJL, Tai, C, Poivey, JP 2009. Eleven generations of selection for the duration of fertility in the intergeneric crossbreeding of ducks. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 32–43.Google Scholar
David, I 2008. Analyse génétique et modélisation de la production de semence et de la réussite de l'insémination artificielle en ovin. PhD, AgroParisTech.Google Scholar
Fujii, S, Tamura, T 1963. Location of sperms in the oviduct of the domestic fowl with special reference to storage of sperms in the vaginal gland. Journal of the Faculty of Fisheries and Animal Husbandary, Hiroshima University 5, 145–163.Google Scholar
Lake, PE 1975. Gamete production and the fertile period with particular reference to domesticated birds. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 35, 225–244.Google Scholar
Michel, G 1987. Sperm storage in the oviduct of domestic poultry with emphasis on sperm nests near the uterovaginal junction. Anatomia Histologia Embryologia 16, 254–258.Google Scholar
Neumaier, A, Groeneveld, E 1998. Restricted maximum likelihood estimation of covariances in sparse linear models. Genetics Selection Evolution 30, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pingel, H 1990. Genetic of growth and meat production in waterfowl. In Poultry breeding and genetics (ed. RD Crawford), pp. 691–704. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Pingel, H 1990. Duration of fertility – an inheritant character. In Control of fertility in domestic birds (ed. INRA), pp. 33–39. Les Colloques de l'INRA no. 54. INRA Publishing, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
Pingel, H 2009. Waterfowl production for food security. Conference at the 4th World Waterfowl Conference, Thrissur, India, 6pp.Google Scholar
Poivey, JP, Cheng, YS, Rouvier, R, Tai, C, Wang, CT, Liu, HL 2001. Genetic parameters of reproductive traits in Brown Tsaiya ducks artificially inseminated with semen from Muscovy drakes. Poultry Science 80, 703–709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ricard, FH, de Carville, H, Marché, G 1988. Etude comparative de la composition anatomique des canards de barbarie, Pékin et mulard. In La génétique du canard de Barbarie (Cairina moschata) et du mulard (ed. R Rouvier), pp. 75–99. Les Colloques de l'INRA no. 42. INRA Publishing, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute (SAS) 2001. SAS/STAT. User's guide, version 8.02. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Sellier, N, Brun, JM, Richard, MM, Batellier, F, Dupuy, V, Brillard, JP 2005. Comparison of fertility and embryo mortality following artificial insemination of common duck females (Anas Platyrhynchos) with semen from common or Muscovy (Cairina Moschata) drakes. Theriogenology 64, 429–439.Google Scholar
Steele, MG, Wishart, GJ 1992. Evidence for a species-specific barrier to sperm transport within the vagina of the chicken hen. Theriogenology 38, 1107–1114.Google Scholar
Tai, C, Rouvier, R, Poivey, JP 1994. Heritabilities for duration of fertility traits in Brown Tsaiya female duck (Anas Platyrhynchos) by artificial insemination with pooled Muscovy (Cairina Moschata) semen. British Poultry Science 35, 377–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tai, C, Tai, JJL 2001. Future prospects of duck production in Asia. The Journal of Poultry Science 38, 99–112.Google Scholar
Zavaleta, D, Ogasawara, F 1987. A review of the mechanism of the release of spermatozoa from storage tubules in the fowl and turkey oviduct. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 43, 132–139.Google Scholar