2011
DOI: 10.3923/javaa.2011.1801.1803
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genetic Trends Estimation for Some of the Growth Traits in Arman Sheep

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
4
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This probably could be assigned to the lack of appropriate selection criteria and breeding objective for this breed of sheep. Estimate of direct genetic trend for BW in the current study (1.63 g/year) was low and generally agrees with those reported by Mokhtari and Rashidi (2010) in Kermani sheep (2 g/year) and Farokhad et al (2011) in Arman sheep (2 g/year) and was lower than the reports of Klerk and Heydenrych (1990) in South African Dohne Merino (5 g/year) and Kariuki et al (2010) in Dorper sheep (6 g/year) and the 7 g/year was reported by Shrestha et al (1996) in Finnsheep breed. Also, estimate of maternal trend for BW was low (2.36 g/year) but this estimate was higher than the direct trend and this may be related to the larger maternal effects on BW than direct genetic effects in Moghani sheep (Rashidi et al 2008).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…This probably could be assigned to the lack of appropriate selection criteria and breeding objective for this breed of sheep. Estimate of direct genetic trend for BW in the current study (1.63 g/year) was low and generally agrees with those reported by Mokhtari and Rashidi (2010) in Kermani sheep (2 g/year) and Farokhad et al (2011) in Arman sheep (2 g/year) and was lower than the reports of Klerk and Heydenrych (1990) in South African Dohne Merino (5 g/year) and Kariuki et al (2010) in Dorper sheep (6 g/year) and the 7 g/year was reported by Shrestha et al (1996) in Finnsheep breed. Also, estimate of maternal trend for BW was low (2.36 g/year) but this estimate was higher than the direct trend and this may be related to the larger maternal effects on BW than direct genetic effects in Moghani sheep (Rashidi et al 2008).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The genetic trends for 3 months weight (34 g/year) and 6 months weight (28 g/year), were greater than the ones observed by Dorostkar et al (2011) in Moghani sheep (5.3 and 5.2 g/year, respectively), and Lotfi et al (2011) in Arman sheep (7 and 8 g/year, respectively); however they were lower than that ones reported by Hassani et al (2010) in Baluchi sheep (55 and 72 g/year, respectively), Shaat et al (2004) in Rahmani sheep (92 and 135 g/year, respectively), and Bahreini and Aslaminejad (2010) in Kermani sheep (82 and 76 g/year, respectively). The estimation of direct genetic trend for yearling weight (24 g/year) was lower than those reported by Hassani et al (2010) in Baluchi sheep (88 g/year) and Dorostkar et al (2011) in Moghani sheep(84 g/year), while it was in accordance with the findings of Shrestha et al (1996) in Suffolk sheep (23 g/year) and it was higher than the ones reported by Bahreini and Aslaminejad (2010) in Kermani sheep (16 g/year).…”
Section: Body Weight Traitscontrasting
confidence: 40%
“…It is a key determinant of animal growth rate, particularly during pre-weaning growth (Farokhad et al, 2011). Increased tailing weights and draft weights were also observed in progeny that inherited H1 compared with those that inherited H5 in the Fernvale 1106/02 half-sib, and tailing weight was also higher in progeny that inherited H1 in the pooled-data analyses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 74%