Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T09:17:48.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic effects on maternal performance and litter pre-weaning and post-weaning traits in rabbits†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

S. Lukefahr ,
W. D. Hohenboken ,
P. R. Cheeke  and
N. M. Patton
S. Lukefahr
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science
W. D. Hohenboken
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science
P. R. Cheeke
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science
N. M. Patton
Affiliation:
Laboratory Animal Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA
Get access

Abstrtact

Flemish Giant (FG) and New Zealand White (NZW) purebreds and terminal crossbreds (TX) (Flemish Giant sires × Florida White-New Zealand White dams) were evaluated during a 10-month period for maternal and litter pre-weaning and post-weaning performance. For the doe traits studied, teat number was greatest and litter interval was shortest, while body weight at breeding age (154 days), litter weight at 21 days and day 1 to 21 food intake were lowest for crossbred does. These traits were similar for pure doe groups, with the exception of body weight, for which FG does were heavier. For the preweaning litter traits examined (no. = 101 litters), litter size born was smallest in the TX group (the purebred groups being similar) and was largest at weaning (28 days) for NZW. Proportion of kits born alive was lowest in FG litters, while the NZW and TX groups were comparable. Litter and average birth and weaning weights, litter daily gain, and doe and litter food intake (1 to 28 days) were all highest in FG litters and lowest in TX litters. Repeatability estimates (t) were low (t < 0·05) for litter size and birth weight traits, and were moderate to high (0·18 < t < 0·58) for the remaining maternally influenced characters. For the post-weaning litter traits studied (no. = 86 litters), NZW litters were larger in number and heavier at market age (56 days), and consumed more food from 28 to 56 days than FG and TX litters. Purebred FG litters, however, had heavier average market weights per rabbit, while purebred NZW and TX litters were similar. Mortality due to respiratory disease was higher in FG litters than in NZW and TX litters. Total mortality incidence was lowest in the TX group.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , April 1984 , pp. 293 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Carregal, R. D. 1980. [Evaluation of heterosis, combining ability and maternal and reciprocal mating effects in rabbits] Proc. 2nd wid Congr. Rabbit Breeding, Barcelona, pp. 213–220.Google Scholar
Cowie, A. T. 1969 Variations, in the yield and composition of the milk during lactation in the rabbit and the galactopoietic effect of prolactin. J. Endoc. 44: 437–450CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donal, R. 1973 [Repeatability of performance and culling criteria for rabbits on commercial farms] Journees Rech. Avicoles Cunkoles (December), pp. 69–73Google Scholar
Gregory, P. W. 1932. The potential and actual fecundity of some breeds of rabbits. J. exp. Zool. 62: 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1975 Least-squares analysis of data with unequal sub class numbers. U. S. Dep Agric ARS H-4.Google Scholar
Heckmann, F. W., Mehner, A. and Niehaus, H. 1971. /Growing ability and slaughtering percentage of some rabbit breeds in different growth periods.] Arch. Geflugelk 35: 197–204.Google Scholar
Hulot, F. and Matheron, G. 1979. [Analysis of genetic variations among three rabbit breeds for litter size and its biological components after a post-partum mating.] Annls Gen Sel Anim. 11: 53–77Google Scholar
Lampo, P. and Van den broeck, L. 1975 [The heritability of some breeding characters in the rabbit and correlations between them.] Arch. Geflugelk. 39: 208–211Google Scholar
Lebas, F. 1969. [Milk feeding and ponderal weight of the rabbit before weaning.] Annls Zootech. 18: 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niehaus, H. and Kocak, c. 1973 [Milk production tests in californian rabbits.] Arch Geflugelk. 37: 102–105.Google Scholar
Ouhayoun, J. 1980. [Comparative development of the body components of -three genetic types of rabbits during postnatal growtn.] Reprod. Nutr. Dev. 20: 949–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouhayoun, J. and Poujardieu, B. 1979. Comparative study of rabbit crossbreeding, between-breed and within-breed relationships between traits of the terminal products. Annls Zootech. 28: 138 (Abstr.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partridge, G. G., Foley, S. and Corrigall, W. 1981. Reproductive performance in purebred and crossbred commercial rabbits. Anim. Prod. 32: 325–331.Google Scholar
Rollins, W. C. and Casady, R. B. 1967. An analysis of pre-weaning deaths in rabbits with special emphasis on enteritis and pneumonia. I. Non-genetic sources of variation. Anim. Prod. 9: 87–92.Google Scholar
Rouvier, R., Poujardieu, B. and Vrillon, J. L. 1973 /Statistical analysis of the breeding performances of female rabbits: Environmental factors, correlations, repeatabilities.] Ann. Gen. Sel. Anim. 5: 83–107.Google Scholar
Suh, G. S., Kim, H. S., Lee, K. S. and Park, Y. I. 1978. [Repeatabilities and environmental factors affecting litter size at birth and at weaning and gestation length in rabbits.] Res. Rep. Office Rur. Dev. Livest. 20: 39–43.Google Scholar
Swiger, L. A., Harvey, W. R., Everson, D. O. and Gregory, K. E. 1964. The variance of intra-class correlation involving groups with one observation. Biometrics 20: 818–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venge, O. 1950. Studies of the maternal influence on the birth weight in rabbits. Ada Zool. Stockh. 31: 1–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venge, O. 1963. The influence of nursing behaviour and milk production on early growth in rabbits. Anim. Behav. 11: 500–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar