No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
An assessment of progress with different stocks and methods of selection in egg layers
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2018
Abstract
Data from 10 years of German random sample tests (1978-87) were analyzed to document recent changes in 5 white-egg and 5 brown-egg strains which had participated fairly regularly in the tests. In the absence of a control population, it is only possible to compare rates of changes between strains and the overall trends of white-egg vs. brown-egg strains. The data show that improvement continues at average levels of performance which must have seemed utopian 20 years ago, when it was popular to question whether any genetic progress was being made.
The methods used by different breeders to achieve the apparent improvements are generally not disclosed, but it seems reasonable to assume that all programs more or less follow the same pattern: combined pure-line and cross-line testing, approximations to classical index selection using individual and family information, with emphasis on different traits depending on economic importance and pressures to keep pace with competitor stocks.
The five brown-egg strains on average have made more progress than the five white-egg strains, but there are also obvious differences in rate of change among strains with the same shell colour. In some instances, the changes may involve the replacement of one or more lines making up the strain cross, which is not reflected by a change in product name.
- Type
- Trait Improvement
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © British Society of Animal Production 1988
References
REFERENCES
Arthur, J.A., 1966. Drawbacks to the use of a random bred control for hybrid populations. Poultry Science
45: 1066.Google Scholar
Arthur, J.A., 1986. An evaluation of industry breeding programs for egg production. Proc. 3rd World Congress Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Lincoln, Nebraska.Google Scholar
Bell, A.E., 1972. More on reciprocal recurrent selection. Proc. Breeders Roundtable, Kansas City.Google Scholar
Bennett, G.L., Dickerson, G.E. and Kashyap, T.S., 1981. Effectiveness of progeny test index selection for field performance of strain-cross layers. II. Predicted and realized responses. Poultry Science
60: 22–33.Google Scholar
Bolton, W., Carter, T.C. and Jones, R.M., 1976. The hen's egg: genetics of taints in eggs from hens fed on rapeseed meal. Brit. Poulry Sci.
17, 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, G.A., 1968. Some implications of selection results in poultry. W.P.S.J.
24: 37–57.Google ScholarPubMed
Dempster, E.R., Lerner, J.M. and Lowry, D.C., 1952. Continous selection for egg production in poultry. Genetics
37: 693–708.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G.E., 1955. Genetic slippage in response to selection for multiple objectives. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol.
20: 213–224.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G.E., 1968: Lessons to be learned from poultry breeding. Proc. Symp. Animal Breeding in the Age of AI. Madison, WI, 69–99.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G.E. and Mather, F.B., 1976. Evidence concerning genetic improvement in commercial stocks of layers. Poultry Science
55: 2327–2342.Google Scholar
Flock, D.K., 1979. Genetic improvement of egg production in laying chickens. In. Selection Experiments in Lab. and Domestic Animals. Ed. Robertson, A., 214–224.Google Scholar
Flock, D.K., Krosigk, C.M.v., Pirchner, F. and Landgraf, H., 1975. Genetische Veränderungen hinsichtlich Marek-Resistenz und Produktionseigenschaften in Leghornkreuzungen. Archiv fur Geflügelkunde
39: 21–28.Google Scholar
Goodwin, K., Dickerson, G.E. and Lamoreux, W.F., 1960. An experimental design for separating genetic and environmental changes in animal populations under selection. Biom. Genetics
117, Pergamon Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hartmann, W.
1988. From Mendel to Multi-National in Poultry Breeding. Gordon Memorial Lecture. Brit. Poultry Science
Google Scholar
Hartmann, W., Heil, G., 1988: Amtliche Legeleistungsprüfung 1986/87; Zusammenfassende Auswertung, DGS
7/88 187–195
Google Scholar
Havenstein, G.B., 1969. A repeat mating control for estimating the genetic changes made by reciprocal recurrent selection. Proc. 18th Breeders' Roundtable, Kansas City.Google Scholar
Heisdorf, A.
1950. Reciprocal recurrent selection. Proc. 3rd Pacific Northwest Poultry Breeders' Roundtable, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.Google Scholar
Heisdorf, A., 1969. Twenty years experience with reciprocal recurrent selection. Proc. 18th Breeders' Roundtable.Google Scholar
Hill, W.G., 1972. Estimation of genetic change. II. Experimental evaluation of control populations. ABA
40: 193–213.Google Scholar
King, S.C., 1966. Randombred controls measure breeders' genetic progress. Proc 13th Wld's Poult. Congr., Kiev, 1966, Sect. Pap.: 21–25.Google Scholar
Kashyap, T S., Dickerson, G.E. and Bennett, G.L., 1981. Effectiveness of progeny test multiple-trait index selection for field performance of strain-cross layers. I. Estimated responses. Poultry Science
60: 1–21.Google Scholar
Krosigk, C.M.v., Havenstein, G.B.
Flock, D.K. and McClary, C.F., 1973. Estimates of response to selection in populations of White Leghorns under reciprocal recurrent selection. 4th European Poultry Conference, London, 265–271.Google Scholar
Lerner, M. and Hazel, L.N., 1947. Population genetics of a poultry flock under artificial selection. Genetics
32: 325–339.Google Scholar
Saadeh, H.K., Craig, J.V., Smith, L.T. and Wearden, S., 1968. Effectiveness of alternative breeding systems for increasing rate of egg production in chickens. Poultry Sci.
47: 1057–1072.Google Scholar