Poult. Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nestor, K.
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nestor, K.
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, R.
Poultry Science, Vol 79, Issue 7, 937-945
Copyright © 2000 by Poultry Science Association


Articles

Effects of selection for increased body weight, egg production, and shank width on developmental stability in turkeys

KE Nestor, JW Anderson, and RA Patterson

Department of Animal Sciences, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Wooster 44691, USA. Nestor.1@osu.edu

Bilateral asymmetry was measured at 20 wk of age for shank length, shank width (width laterally at the dew claw), shank depth (width perpendicular to the dew claw), and face length (between auditory canal opening and the posterior junction of the upper and lower mandible) in three randombred control lines and three selected lines of turkeys. The data were based on 50 or 51 individuals per line and sex subgroup from a single hatch. The lines were grown intermingled with the sexes being grown in different houses. The selected lines had been selected for increased egg production (38 generations), increased 16-wk BW (32 generations), or increased shank width (19 generations) and had a higher level of inbreeding (average = 36.9%) than the randombred controls (RBC; average = 11.6%). The bilateral differences (right minus left) were analyzed for the presence of fluctuating asymmetry (FA; zero signed mean with normal variation), directional asymmetry (DA; signed mean not zero with normal variation), and antisymmetry (AS; zero mean with non-normal distribution). In order to adjust for possible scaling effects, relative asymmetry (RA), in which the mean of the absolute differences between sides was divided by the mean of the two sides and the resulting value was multiplied by 100, was used as a measure of bilateral asymmetry. The randombred control and selected lines were contrasted to study the effect of homozygosity on RA. Likewise, the large-bodied lines (F, FL, and RBC3) were contrasted to the small-bodied lines (RBC1, E, and RBC2) to study the effect of BW on RA. Only two types (FA and DA) of asymmetry were observed in the present study. The level of asymmetry for the traits was ranked as follows: face length > shank width = shank depth > shank length. The individual lines differed in RA for shank length and shank width for both sexes and for shank depth and face length in females. In general, the influence of BW, as measured in the contrast of large-bodied and small-bodied lines, on RA was larger than that of homozygosity, as measured by the contrast of the selected and randombred control lines.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Poult. Sci.Home page
A. Van Nuffel, F. A. M. Tuyttens, S. Van Dongen, W. Talloen, E. Van Poucke, B. Sonck, and L. Lens
Fluctuating Asymmetry in Broiler Chickens: A Decision Protocol for Trait Selection in Seven Measuring Methods
Poult. Sci., December 1, 2007; 86(12): 2555 - 2568.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Poult. Sci.Home page
S. G. Velleman and K. E. Nestor
Inheritance of Breast Muscle Morphology in a Line of Turkeys Selected for Increased Egg Production, Its Randombred Control Line, and Reciprocal Crosses Between Them
Poult. Sci., December 1, 2006; 85(12): 2130 - 2134.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2000 by the Poultry Science Association.