Genetic and phenotypic response in Vanaraja male line chicken under short term selection experiment

U RAJKUMAR; M K PADHI; SANTOSH HAUNSHI; R N CHATTERJEE

doi:10.56093/ijans.v86i11.63320

Authors

U RAJKUMAR ICAR- Directorate of Poultry Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 030 India
M K PADHI ICAR- Directorate of Poultry Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 030 India
SANTOSH HAUNSHI ICAR- Directorate of Poultry Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 030 India
R N CHATTERJEE ICAR- Directorate of Poultry Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 030 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v86i11.63320

Keywords:

Body weight, Correlated response, Genetic response, Shank length, Vanaraja

Abstract

The genetic and phenotypic response for 6 weeks shank length (SL6) and correlated response for body weights at 2, 4 and 6 weeks of age were evaluated in short term selection experiment in Vanaraja male line (PD-1) utilizing the data collected for the last 6 generations in a pedigreed mating. The direct response in SL, the primary trait was 2.01±0.85 mm on genetic scale and 2.35±0.36 mm on phenotypic scale. The SL was 68.07±0.004 mm in first generation of study (S4) which gradually improved to 81.01±0.002 mm over the last 6 generations. The correlated genetic response in body weight at 2, 4 and 6 weeks of age was in positive direction though not significant. The body weights improved as correlated response to the primary trait. The phenotypic response in body weights was in positive direction and significant at 6 weeks of age; however at 2 and 4 weeks, it was not significant. The effective population size (Ne) ranged from 150 to 167, the selection intensity (i) between 0.24 to 1.09 and rate of inbreeding from 0.0029 to 0.0033 in the last 6 generations. The realized and estimated heritability estimates were 0.17 and 0.12 for 6 week shank length, respectively. The study concluded that, the genetic and phenotypic responses were positive over the generation with a gradual improvement in the primary trait as well as the juvenile body weights in PD-1 line. The improvement trend was also reflected in Vanaraja, a terminal cross produced for rural/backyard poultry using PD-1 as male line.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Dickerson G E. 1955. Genetic slippage in response to selection for multiple objectives. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 20: 213–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/SQB.1955.020.01.020

Dunnington E A, Honaker C F, Mc Gilliard M L and Seegel PB. 2013. Phenotypic response of chickens to long term bidirectional selection for juvenile body weight-Historical perspective. Poultry Science 92: 1724–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03069

Eisen E J. 2007. Animal Breeding: What does the future hold? Asian Australian Journal of Animal Sciences 20: 453–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2007.453

Falconer D S and Mackay T F C. 1997. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Longman Group, Essexx, England.

Fuller R C, Baer C F and Travis J. 2005. How and when selection experiments might actually be useful. Integrated Comparative Biology 45: 391–404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/45.3.391

Harvey W R. 1990. User’s gude for PC-2 version of LSM LMW mixed model least-squares and maximum likelihood computer program. W. R. Harvey, Columbus, OH.

James J W. 1990. Selection theory versus selection results-A comparison. Proceedings of 4th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. Vol. XIII, 195. (Eds) Hill W G, Thompson R and Woolliams J A. Edinburgh, Scotland.

King S C and Henderson C R. 1954. Variance component analysis in heritability studies. Poultry Science 33: 147–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0330147

Nwagu B I, Olorunju S A S, Oni O O, Eduvi L O, Adeyinka A, Sekoni A A and Abeki F O. 2007. Response of egg number to selection in Rhode Island Red chickens selected for part period egg production. International Journal of Poultry Science 6: 18–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2007.18.22

Ogbu C C. 2012. Phenotypic response to mass selection in the Nigerian indigenous chickens. Asian Journal of Poultry Science 6: 89–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3923/ajpsaj.2012.89.96

Padhi M K, Rajkumar U, Niranjan M, Haunshi S and Bhanja S K. 2012. Genetic studies of juvenile traits in Vanaraja male line a dual purpose backyard chicken. Indian Journal of Poultry Science 47: 234–36.

Pettersson M, Esnier F B, Siegel P B and Carlborg O. 2011. Replication and explorations of high-order epistasis using a large advanced intercross line pedigree. PLoS Genetics 7 e1002180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002180

Pinard M H, van Arendonk J A M, Nieuland M G B and van der Zijpp A J. 1992. Divergent selection for immune responsiveness in chickens: Estimation of realized heritability an animal model. Journal of Animal Science 70: 2986–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/1992.70102986x

Rajkumar U, Rajaravindra K S, Niranjan M, Reddy B L N, Bhattacharya T K, Chatterjee R N and Sharma R P. 2010. Evaluation of naked neck broiler genotypes under tropical environment. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 80: 463–67.

Reddy B L N, Chatterjee R N, Rajkuamr U, Niranjan M, Rajaravindra K S and Bhattacharya T K. 2013. Genetic evaluation of short term selection in synthetic coloured broiler male and female lines-Direct and correlated responses. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 83: 285–89.

Roberts R C. 1979. Side effects of selection for growth in laboratory mice. Livestock Production Science 6: 93–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(79)90034-4

Scholtz M M, Roux C Z and Schoeman S J. 1990. An investigation into the consequences of selection for growth, size and efficiency. South African Journal of Animal Science 20: 170– 73.

Tercic D. 2013. Divergent selection experiments in poultry. Slovakian Veterinary Research 50: 139–44.