• Korean Journal of Poultry Science
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.61-71
• /
• 1989

The purposes of this study were to investigate the genetic variations by backcrossing in commercial chickens. Backcrossing was carried out successively back to parent stock (P.S). Heritabilities and genetic correlation coefficients were estimated to verify the genetic variations. The data obtained from a breeding programme with commercial chickens (I strain) were collected from 1955 to 1987 at Poultry Breeding Farm, Seoul National University. Data came from a total of 1230 female offspring. The results obtained are summarized as follows： 1. The general performance ($Mean\pmStandard deviation$) of each trait was $663.94\pm87.11$g for 8 weeks body weight, $1579.1\pm155.43$g for 20 weeks body weight, $2124.1\pm215.3$g for 40 weeks body weight, $2269.1\pm242.94$g for 60 weeks body weight, $168.43\pm12.94$ day for a9e at sexual maturity (SM), $214.52\pm29.82$ eggs , for total egg number to 60 weeks of age (TEN), $61.45\pm3.48$ g for average weight (AEW), $13180.7\pm1823.22$ g for total egg mass to 60 weeks of age(TEM). All traits, except 10 weeks body weight and AEW, were significant for the degrees of backcross (p＜0.01). 2. The pooled estimates of heritabilities derived from the sire, dam and combined variance components were 0.47~0.52 for age at sexual maturity (SM), 0.07~0.37 for total egg number (TEN), 0.40~0.54 for average egg weight (AEW), 0.18~0.27 for total egg mass (TEM). High heritability estimates were found for SM and AEW. TEN and TEM were estimated to be a lowly heritable traits. Heritability estimates from dam components were higher than those from sire components. These differences might be due to non-additive genetic effect and maternal effect. 3. The estimates of heritabilities and standard errors derived from combined variance components for different degrees of backcross were $0.47\pm0.11$ (BCO), $0.42\pm0.16$ (BC1), $0.51\pm0.29$ (BC2) for TEN, $0.59\pm0.20$ (BCO), $0.43\pm0.17$ (BC1), $0.35\pm0.18$ (BC2) for AEW, $0.28\pm0.12$(BC0), $0.20\pm0.11$(BC1), $0.18\pm0.14$ (BC2) for TEM. Heritability estimates for AEW and TEM were decreased by backcrossing while those for SM and TEN remained constant. Since backcrossing contributes to increased homozygosity, the genetic variation of the traits (AEW and TEM) decreased . 4. The pooled estimates of genetic correlation coefficients were -0.55 between SM and TEN, 0.20 between SM and AEW, -0.29 between TEN and AEW, 0.82 between TEM and TEN, 0.31 between TEM and AEW, -0.42 between TEM and SM. The genetic correlation between TEM and TEN was higher than that between TEM and AEW, and it was suggested that egg mass was strongly affected by egg number. Also, age at sexual maturity(SM) contributes to egg mass(TEM). 5. When backcrossing was carried out successively, the genetic correlation between TEM and TEN increased (BC0：0.79, BC1：0.82, BC2：0.91) but those between TEM and SM decreased (BC0：-0.54, BC1：-0.36, BC2：-0.09) with successive backcrosses.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.57
• /
• pp.467-505
• /
• 2014

I am working on a series of Korean linguistic studies targeting Ganchal(old typed letters in Korea) for many years and this study is for the typology of the [Safety Expression] as the part. For this purpose, [Safety Expression] were divided into a formal types and semantic types, targeting the Chinese Ganchal and Hangul Ganchal of modern Korean Language time(16th century-19th century). Formal types can be divided based on whether Normal position or not, whether Omission or not, whether the Sending letter or not, whether the relationship of the high and the low or not. Normal position form and completion were made the first type which reveal well the typicality of the [Safety Expression]. Original position while [Own Safety] omitted as the second type, while Original position while [Opposite Safety] omitted as the third type, Original position while [Safety Expression] omitted as the fourth type. Inversion type were made as the fifth type which is the most severe solecism in [Safety Expression]. The first type is refers to Original position type that [Opposite Safety] precede the [Own Safety] and the completion type that is full of semantic element. This type can be referred to most typical and normative in that it equipped all components of [Safety Expression]. A second type is that [Safety Expression] is composed of only the [Opposite Safety]. This type is inferior to the first type in terms of set pattern, it is never outdone when it comes to the appearance frequency. Because asking [Opposite Safety] faithfully, omitting [Own Safety] dose not greatly deviate politeness and easy to write Ganchal, it is utilized. The third type is the Original position type showing the configuration of the [Opposite Safety]+Own Safety], but [Opposite Safety] is omitted. The fourth type is a Original position type showing configuration of the [Opposite Safety+Own Safety], but [Safety Expression] is omitted. This type is divided into A ; [Safety Expression] is entirely omitted and B ; such as 'saving trouble', the conventional expression, replace [Safety Expression]. The fifth type is inversion type that shown to structure of the [Own Safety+Opposite Safety], unlike the Original position type. This type is the most severe solecism type and real example is very rare. It is because let leading [Own Safety] and ask later [Opposite Safety] for face save is offend against common decency. In addition, it can be divided into the direct type that [Opposite Safety] and [Own Safety] is directly connected and indirect type that separate into the [story]. The semantic types of [Safety Expression] can be classified based on whether Sending letter or not, fast or slow, whether intimate or not, and isolation or not. For Sending letter, [Safety Expression] consists [Opposite Safety(Climate+Inquiry after health+Mental state)+Own safety(status+Inquiry after health+Mental state)]. At [Opposite safety], [Climate] could be subdivided as [Season] information and [Climate(weather)] information. Also, [Mental state] is divided as receiver's [Family Safety Mental state] and [Individual Safety Mental state]. In [Own Safety], [Status] is divided as receiver's traditional situation; [Recent condition] and receiver's ongoing situation; [Present condition]. [Inquiry after health] is also subdivided as receiver's [Family Safety] and [Individual Safety], [Safety] is as [Family Safety] and [Individual Safety]. Likewise, [Inquiry after health] or [Safety] is usually used as pairs, in dimension of [Family] and [Individual]. This phenomenon seems to have occurred from a big family system, which is defined as taking care of one's parents or grand parents. As for the Written Reply, [Safety Expression] consists [Opposite Safety (Reception+Inquiry after health+Mental state)+Own safety(status+Inquiry after health+Mental state)], and only in [Opposite safety], a difference in semantic structure happens with Sending letter. In [Opposite Safety], [Reception] is divided as [Letter] which is Ganchal that is directly received and [Message], which is news that is received indirectly from people. [Safety] is as [Family Safety] and [Individual Safety], [Mental state] also as [Family Safety Mental state] and [Individual Safety Mental state].