Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:25:30.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coypu (Myocastor coypus) as a meat resource: heterotic and maternal effects on growth traits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

E. P. Spiaggi ,
A. Benaglia  and
R. J. Di Masso
E. P. Spiaggi
Affiliation:
Centro de Estudios Ambientales de Veterinaria (CEAV), Cátedra de Genética y Biometria, Consejo de Investigaciones, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Nacional de Rosario Ov. Lagos y Ruta 33, 2170 Casilda, República Argentina
A. Benaglia
Affiliation:
Centro de Estudios Ambientales de Veterinaria (CEAV), Cátedra de Genética y Biometria, Consejo de Investigaciones, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Nacional de Rosario Ov. Lagos y Ruta 33, 2170 Casilda, República Argentina
R. J. Di Masso
Affiliation:
Centro de Estudios Ambientales de Veterinaria (CEAV), Cátedra de Genética y Biometria, Consejo de Investigaciones, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Nacional de Rosario Ov. Lagos y Ruta 33, 2170 Casilda, República Argentina
Get access

Abstract

The coypu (Myocastor coypus) is an aquatic rodent usually bred for fur production. Fluctuations in fur prices have led to coypu meat being considered as a genuine resource in commercial farms, which contribute to the diversification of agro-ecosystems. To characterize coypus as a meat resource, maternal and heterotic effects on birth weight, weaning weight, slaughter weight, number of days required to attain a weaning weight of l kg, and on two parameters of the Gompertz growth curve (asymptotic weight and maturing rate) were studied. Eight males and eight females of Standard (S) and Cognac (C) genotypes and of their reciprocal crosses (C × S) and (S × C), where the first letter denotes the paternal genotype, were used. Significant genotype, sex and (genotype × sex) interaction effects were evident for most traits. S animals were lighter than С at all ages. Hybrids with С mothers were heavier than their reciprocals. Maternal effects on the parameters of the growth curve were observed only in females. Heterotic effects were extremely significant. Favourable heterotic effects in immature animals were explained by a change in the F1 growth pattern. Males showed a dominant deviation toward low asymptotic weights and overdominance for high maturing rate. Females showed partial dominance of high asymptotic weight and over dominance for high maturing rate. This association of genetic effects would justify a productive system based on a terminal cross using С females and S males because of the higher maturing rate of both hybrids and the maternal effect of С genotype, a combination that allows higher weights at the usual slaughter age (6 months) or butchering of animals at earlier ages.

Keywords

heterosisgrowth curvematernal effectsmeat animalsNutria
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , June 1999 , pp. 635 - 640
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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

Barbato, G. F. 1991. Genetic architecture of growth curve parameters in chickens. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 83: 24–32.Google Scholar
Biasatti, N. R., Spiaggi, E. P., Marc, L. B. and Di Masso, R. J. 1998. Minilivestock in Argentina. Integration with agricultural production. Tropicultura In press.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1976. The choice of selection objectives in meat producing animals. In Meat animals. Growth and productivity (ed. D. Lister, , Rhodes, D. N., Fowler, V. R. and Fuller, M. F.), pp. 449–462. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Di Masso, R. J., Rucci, A. N. and Font, M. T. 1990. Growth analysis in two lines of rats and their reciprocal Fı crosses under two nutritional environments. Heterosis for body weight and maturing rate. Growth, Development and Aging 54: 117–123.Google Scholar
Fitzhugh, H. A. Jr 1976. Analysis of growth curves and strategies for altering their shape. Journal of Animal Science 42: 1036–1051.Google Scholar
Gosling, L. M. and Skinner, J. R. 1984. Coypu. In Evolution of domesticated animals (ed. Mason, I. L.), pp. 246–251. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Grossman, M. and Bohren, B.B. 1985. Logistic growth curve of chickens: heritability of parameters. Journal of Heredity 76: 459–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheridan, A. K. 1981. Crossbreeding and heterosis. Animal Breeding Abstracts 49: 131–144.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1969. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, Ca.Google Scholar
Spiaggi, E. P., Mansilla, M. I. and Di Masso, R. J. 1994. Growth pattern of nutria (Myocastor coypus). Comunicaciones Biológicas 12: 188 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Spiaggi, E. P., Mansilla, M. I. and Di Masso, R. J. 1996. [Asymptotic weight and maturing rate in nutria (Myocastor coypus).] Revista Argentina de Producción Animal 16: 181–186.Google Scholar
Tatsuoka, M. M. 1971. Multivariate analysis techniques for educational and psychological research. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar