Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:16:45.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The effect of selection for heifer milk yield on the production level of mature cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Alan Robertson
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh
S. S. Khishin
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh

Extract

The effect of selection of dairy bulls on their daughters' 1st lactation yields has been investigated, using contemporary comparison information availreable for some 1273 bulls. It was shown that incomplete repeatability of individual records would introduce a negative bias into the regression of the increase in production of a bull's daughters with age on his contemporary comparison and this bias was calculated. The observed regressions on 1st lactation contemporary comparison were close to zero after correction for bias both for increase from 1st lactation yield to 2nd (— 0·08) and for the increase from 2nd lactation to 3rd (+ 0·09). Selection on 1st lactation yield should not, therefore, change the increase of yield with age, in agreement with results of other workers. The results are related to the problem of the heritability of the separate lactations.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

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

Hickman, C. G. & Henderson, C. R. (1955). J. Dairy Sci. 38, 883–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, I. (1955). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. pp. 102–8.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board (1956). Progeny Recorded Bulls with Contemporary Comparisons, 1st Lactation. M.M.B.: Thames Ditton, England.Google Scholar
Rendel, J. M., Robertson, A., Asker, A. A., Khishin, S. S. & Ragab, M. T. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 426–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A., Stewart, A. & Ashton, E. D. (1956). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. pp. 4250.Google Scholar