Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:17:29.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Progeny testing dairy bulls at different management levels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 1960

Alan Robertson
Affiliation:
Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton, Surrey
L. K. O'Connor
Affiliation:
Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton, Surrey
J. Edwards
Affiliation:
Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton, Surrey
Get access

Extract

1. Records used to compile the Contemporary Comparisons of 57 Friesian, 8 English Ayrshire and 11 Scottish Ayrshire A.I. bulls, each with at least 100 ‘effective daughters’ were analysed.

2. For each bull, the herd-years were divided into three equal groups on the basis of the average heifer yield of both daughters and contemporaries (high-, medium-, and low-producing herd-years) and three independent Contemporary Comparisons were calculated for each bull, one at each of the three yield levels.

3. In the data from England and Wales, the mean Contemporary Comparison declined with increasing mean level of production. This decline was such as to imply that some 20% of the differences in production between herds were genetic in origin. A possible explanation lies in the gradual change from Dairy Shorthorn to Friesian and Ayrshire which has taken place in England and Wales, but not in Scotland, during the last 15 years.

4. The variance within progeny groups within herd-years increased from the low level to the high but the coefficient of variation decreased slightly. The variance between sires also increased with the mean level of production but almost exactly in parallel with that within sires so that the heritability and consequently the accuracy of the progeny test for milk yield was effectively the same at all production levels.

5. The correlation between the true breeding values of the bulls at the different levels was very close to one.

6. From these results it is concluded that there is no need to provide special strains within breeds to suit particular management levels or to concentrate progeny testing in the higher-producing herds and that daughter records from all herds, irrespective of level of production, can be used with equal confidence.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1960

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

Falconer, D. S., 1952. The problem of environment and selection. Amer. Nat., 86: 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gravert, H. O., 1958. Untersuchungen über die Heritabilität der Butterfettleistung. Z. Tierz. ZüchtBiol., 71: 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legates, J. E., 1949. A selection index for butterfat production in Jersey cattle utilizing the fat yields of the cow and her relatives. Doct. Thesis, Iowa State College, Ames.Google Scholar
Legates, J. E., 1957. Heritability of fat yields in herds with different production levels. J. Dairy Sci., 40: 631 (Soc. Proa).Google Scholar
McArthur, A. T. G., 1954. The assessment of progeny tests of dairy bulls made under farm conditions. Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod., 1954: 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, I. L., & Robertson, A., 1956. The progeny testing of dairy bulls at different levels of production. J. agric. Sci., 47: 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A., 1959. The sampling variance of the genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics, 15: 469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A., & Rendel, J. M., 1954. The performance of heifers got by artificial insemination. J. agric. Sci., 44: 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A., Stewart, A., & Ashton, E. D., 1956. The progeny assessment of dairy sires for milk: the use of contemporary comparisons. Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod., 1956: 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J. D. J., & Phillips, D. S. M., 1959. Management factors associated with high and low producing herds. Proc. Ruakura Fmrs'. Conf. Wk (Hamilton N.Z.), 198.Google Scholar