Genotype-Environment Interactions in Broiler Stocks of Chickens

Marks, H. L.; Moore, C. H.; Gyles, N. R.; Tindell, L. D.; Johnson, William A.; Dreesen, L. J.; Blow, W. L.; Martin, Gerald; Krueger, W. F.; Siegel, P. B.

doi:10.3382/ps.0481553

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regardless of diet, at all ages Line A males consumed more feed, grew faster, and utilized feed more efficiently than Line B males. Lack of line by diet interactions observed in the present experiment was consistent with previous reports (Siegel and Wisman,TABLE 8 1966; Marks et al, 1969;Siegel et al, 1984;Sorensen, 1985;Cahaner et al, 1987) and suggested that the most efficient broiler line should be used for evaluating all diets. Significant line by feeding regimen interactions have been reported for BW (Pinchasov et al, 1985;Nir et al, 1987).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 95%

Genotype, Feeding Regimen, and Diet Interactions in Meat Chickens.

1991

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Allomorphic growth of organs and feed utilization were measured in cockerels from two meat lines known to differ in growth potential under alternate-day and daily feeding of diets differing in nutrient density. The faster growing line consumed more feed and utilized feed more efficiently than the slower growing line. Relative weights of heart and all segments of the gastrointestinal tract except the esophagus were smaller in the faster than in the slower growing line whereas breast, thigh, and drumstick were greater for the faster than the slower growing line. These patterns existed regardless of diet. In contrast, line by feeding regimen interactions were noted for most traits; the faster growing line was influenced more by restricted feeding than the slower growing line. Thus, the practice of selecting individuals in a restricted-feeding environment when commercial stocks have feed available to them at all times may be faulty. Although the alternate-day feeding regimen improved feed efficiency, results indicated that full benefit of feed restriction would be realized by feeding a diet higher in nutrient density.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 95%

Genotype, Feeding Regimen, and Diet Interactions in Meat Chickens.

1991

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The average abdominal fat percentage body weight for female broilers was 1.25 ± .03 with a range from .07 to 3.08% and a coefficient of variation of 48%. These broilers had low quantities of abdominal fat due to location effect (see Marks et al, 1969) and the high summer temperatures experienced in the area in which they were grown in 1982. In spite of these unfavorable environmental conditions for developing abdominal fat, there was much variation for this trait.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Regression of Abdominal Fat in Broilers on Abdominal Fat in Spent Parents on Severe Feed Restriction

1984

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A commercial meat-type female line was maintained on the restricted feeding program recommended by the breeder to 5 months of age. Sixty-five pullets were then placed in individual cages and fed throughout laying to 14 months of age at the rate of 12.75 kg of feed per 100 hens per day. Egg production was measured per hen between 7 and 9 months of age. A total of 418 male and 359 female pedigreed progeny were produced by artificially inseminating the hens using semen from a commercial meat-type male line. The male broilers averaged .98 ± .02 abdominal fat percentage body weight with a coefficient of variation of 50%. The female broilers averaged 1.25 ± .03 abdominal fat percentage body weight with a coefficient of variation of 48%. Heritability estimates for abdominal fat percentage body weight of broilers were .72 ± .21 for males and .23 ± .20 for females. Genetic correlations between body weight and abdominal fat weight in broilers were .23 for males and .64 for females, but there was essentially no genetic correlation between body weight and abdominal fat percentage body weight, which was 0 for males and -.12 for females. The spent dams and sires were sacrificed at 14 months of age. The dams averaged 2.43 ± .20 abdominal fat percentage body weight with a coefficient of variation of 63%. The sires had no abdominal fat. The regression of abdominal fat percentage body weight of daughters at 8 weeks of age on percentage abdominal fat in dams at 14 months age was -.071 + .042 and for sons on dams was -.03 ± .035.

show abstract

Genotype‐environment interactions in genetically diverse meat‐type stocks of Chickens¹

Marks

Moore

Gyles

et al. 1972

British Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genotype-Environment Interactions in Broiler Stocks of Chickens

Cited by 5 publications

References 2 publications

Genotype, Feeding Regimen, and Diet Interactions in Meat Chickens.

Genotype, Feeding Regimen, and Diet Interactions in Meat Chickens.

Regression of Abdominal Fat in Broilers on Abdominal Fat in Spent Parents on Severe Feed Restriction

Genotype‐environment interactions in genetically diverse meat‐type stocks of Chickens¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Genotype-Environment Interactions in Broiler Stocks of Chickens

Cited by 5 publications

References 2 publications

Genotype, Feeding Regimen, and Diet Interactions in Meat Chickens.

Genotype, Feeding Regimen, and Diet Interactions in Meat Chickens.

Regression of Abdominal Fat in Broilers on Abdominal Fat in Spent Parents on Severe Feed Restriction

Genotype‐environment interactions in genetically diverse meat‐type stocks of Chickens1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Genotype‐environment interactions in genetically diverse meat‐type stocks of Chickens¹