Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:13:51.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison between the actual progeny test of Friesian/Holstein bulls and indexes calculated from pedigree information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. J. T. Swanson  and
H. Joanne Bellamy
G. J. T. Swanson
Affiliation:
Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton, Surrey KT7 0EL
H. Joanne Bellamy
Affiliation:
Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton, Surrey KT7 0EL
Get access

Abstract

Two pedigree indexes were calculated for 754 Friesian/Holstein bulls born between 1974 and 1980 and tested by the Milk Marketing Board. Correlations between the indexes and the average progeny performance were used to compare the indexes calculated using information from different ancestors. The first index, or estimated predicted difference (EPD) was calculated as one-half the sire progeny test, known as an Improved Contemporary Comparison (ICC), plus one-quarter the maternal grandsire ICC. The second index or estimated ICC (EICC) was calculated from one-half the sire ICC plus one-half the dam cow genetic index (CGI). The correlations between the deregressed bull evaluations (DICC) and EPD, calculated from 310 bulls, were 0·40 for milk yield, 0·40 for fat yield and 0·39 for protein yield. The corresponding correlations between the DICC and EICC, calculated from 314 bulls, were 0·43, 0·40 and 0·41. The regression coefficients for predicting average progeny performance from the EPD index were 1·00 (s.e. 0·13), 0·97 (s.e. 0·12), 0·96 (s.e. 0·13), 1·09 (s.e. 0·12) and 1·08 (s.e. 0·10) for milk, fat and protein yield, fat and protein percentage respectively. Those for predicting progeny performance from the EICC index were 0·95 (s.e. 0·11), 0·81 (s.e. 0·10) and 0·84 (s.e. 0·10) for milk, fat and protein yield respectively. Although the correlations were lower than the expected values of 0·50 (EPD) and 0·55 (EICC) the regressions were near the expected value of 1. The results indicate that the indexes are useful as a preliminary means of selecting bulls prior to progeny testing.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , February 1989 , pp. 37 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1989

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

Henderson, C. R. 1973. Sire evaluation and genetic trends. Proceedings of the Animal Breeding and Genetics Symposium, Blacksburg, Virginia, American Society of Animal Science, pp. 10–41.Google Scholar
Hill, W. G. and Swanson, G. J. T. 1983. A selection index for dairy cows. Animal Production 37: 313–319.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1980. The Improved Contemporary Comparison. Report, Breeding and Production Organisation, Milk Marketing Board, No. 30, pp. 72–73.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1981. The ICC base. Report, Breeding and Production Organisation, Milk Marketing Board, No. 31, pp. 76–77.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1982. Improved Contemporary Comparison. Report, Breeding and Production Organisation, Milk Marketing Board, No. 33, pp. 50–51.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1986. Improved Contemporary Comparison (ICC) Results. Report, Breeding and Production Organisation, Milk Marketing Board, No. 37, pp. 49–53.Google Scholar
Powell, R. L., Norman, H. D. and Dickinson, F. N. 1977. Relationships between bulls' pedigree indexes and daughter performance in the modified contemporary comparison. Journal of Dairy Science 60: 961–966.Google Scholar
Quaas, R. L., Everett, R. W. and McClintock, A. C. 1979. Maternal grandsire model for dairy sire evaluation. Journal of Dairy Science 62: 1648–1654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, L. R. 1981. Pedigree indexing of Holstein bulls used in artificial insemination. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 61: 261–269.Google Scholar