2010
DOI: 10.4995/wrs.2005.514
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analysis of reproductive performances during the formation of a synthetic rabbit strain

Abstract: ABSTRACT:In 1995, a synthetic rabbit strain ('2666') was formed at INRA for commercial meat purposes by crossing the INRA '2066' strain and the 'V' strain from the Polytechnical University of Valencia (Spain). The development of some reproductive traits and body weight at palpation of the '2666' does was studied from the F1 (first generation cross) to the F4 generation in comparison with the 'V' does. This development was quantified in terms of Dickerson's crossbreeding parameters. The base strains did not dif… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Over the years, the number of live born and weaned kits was improved (from 6.63±2.78 to 8.10±2.72 and from 5.41±2.45 to 7.19±1.92, respectively; P≤0.001), with a good effect also on mortality rate before weaning in contrast with expectation (Rashwan and Marai, 2000), and consequently also the litter weight (from 50417±2118 to 7287±1876 g; P<0.001) and the average individual weight at weaning (from 975±208 to 1025±136 g; P<0.001), even if the average daily gain in the first month seems be negatively affected by litter size at birth (Poigner et al, 2000). The results can be compared to those reported by Brun and Baselga (2005) for a synthetic rabbit strain.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…Over the years, the number of live born and weaned kits was improved (from 6.63±2.78 to 8.10±2.72 and from 5.41±2.45 to 7.19±1.92, respectively; P≤0.001), with a good effect also on mortality rate before weaning in contrast with expectation (Rashwan and Marai, 2000), and consequently also the litter weight (from 50417±2118 to 7287±1876 g; P<0.001) and the average individual weight at weaning (from 975±208 to 1025±136 g; P<0.001), even if the average daily gain in the first month seems be negatively affected by litter size at birth (Poigner et al, 2000). The results can be compared to those reported by Brun and Baselga (2005) for a synthetic rabbit strain.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…It seems that a compensatory growth has taken place after weaning; this process has previously been shown in rabbits by Testik et al (1999) and Belhadi (2004). This compensatory growth is expected because maternal effects lose importance after weaning (Mínguez, 2011) and ADG is relatively free of maternal effects (Estany et al 1989;Camacho and Baselga, 1991;Cifre et al 1999;Su et al 1999). It must also be noted that the pattern of the contrast for ADG 42-63 was opposite to that for ADG [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] , all the estimates for the last one being positive, but only significant for the contrast AL-VV.…”
Section: Differences Between Genetic Groupsmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…One result which clearly draws attention is that the signs of the majority of the estimates for BW, ADG and FI are negative. This could be a partial consequence of the positive heterosis showed by the crossbred does regarding litter size (Brun and Saleil, 1994;Khalil and Afifi, 2000;Baselga, et al 2003;Brun and Baselga, 2005;Youssef et al, 2008;Ragab, 2012). The higher litter sizes of the crossbred does compared to purebreds would penalise body weight, weight gain and feed intake of their progeny (Rouvier et al, 1973;Johnson et al, 1988;Lukefahr et al, 1990;Ferguson et al, 1997).…”
Section: Maternal Heterosismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A result which clearly draws attention is that the sign of the majority of the estimates for slaughter and carcass traits were negative. Many results of positive heterosis, regarding litter size, have been reported (Brun and Saleil, 1994;Khalil and Afifi, 2000;Baselga, et al 2003;Brun and Baselga, 2005;Youssef et al, 2008;Ragab, 2012). This results in higher litter sizes of the crossbred does compared to purebreds, which would penalise body weights Johnson et al, 1988;Lukefahr et al, 1990;Ferguson et al, 1997).…”
Section: Maternal Heterosismentioning
confidence: 94%