Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T12:48:56.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The inheritance of a tail abnormality associated with urogenital disorders in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. P. Donald
H. P. Donald
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genetics Research Organization, University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An analysis of the breeding of 130 kinky-tailed pigs of Large White and Wessex origin indicates that the character is genetic in nature and is of variable penetrance and expressivity. The hypothesis is put forward that pigs, in general, may be charcterized by a slight tendency to this defect which is exhibited when the appropriate accidents of development occur. In addition, there may be genes which raise the overall frequency and severity of the defect. In the Large White inbred strain studied, it is thought that there were minor genes with a recessive effect as well as a major gene with incomplete dominance. In the inbred strain several litters were obtained which included no normal pigs although both parents were apparently normal. In outcrosses, kinky tails appeared less frequently. Inbred, kinky-tailed pigs were difficult to rear and of those kept for breeding most proved sterile. Post-mortem examination of a number of affected pigs showed a high incidence of abnormalities of the kidneys, ureters and genitalia. The suggestion is made that kinky tails are but a minor manifestation of an early developmental disorder.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , April 1949 , pp. 164 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1949

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

Archibald, R. M. & Hancock, E. E. I. (1939). Canadian Journal of Comparative Anatomy, 3, 134.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. C. & Gluecksohn-Schoenhiemer, S. (1945). Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 31, 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L. C. & Gluecksohn-Schoenheimer, S. (1947). J. Exp. Zool. 104, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüneberg, H. (1943). The Genetics of the Mouse. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1944). Proc. Nutrit. Soc. 2, 8.Google Scholar
Huggett, S. St B. (1946). Brit. Med. Bull. 4, 196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jesperson, J. & Oxsen, N. H. J. (1939). 182 Beretning, Forsogslaboratoriet. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Kamenoff, R. J. (1935). J. Morph. 58, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcmeekan, C. P. (1940 a). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcmeekan, C. P. (1940 b). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcmeekan, C. P. (1940 c). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordby, J. (1934). J. Hered. 25, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sisson, S. & Grossman, J. D. (1940). The Anatomy of the Domestic Animals. London and Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.Google Scholar
Stockard, C. H. (1941). The Genetic and Endrocrinic Basis for differences in Form and Behaviour. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Physiology.Google Scholar
Warkany, J. & Nelson, R. C. (1942). J. Nutrit. 23, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warkany, J. & Schraffenberger, E. (1944). J. Nutrit. 27, 477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, A. S. (1947). N.Y. St. J. Med. 47, 985.Google Scholar
Willham, O. S. & Craft, W. A. (1939). Bull. Okla. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 7.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1934 a). Genetics, 19, 471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S. (1934 b). Genetics, 19, 506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed