Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-w7rtg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-25T17:20:01.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of an indirect and direct method for converting sire evaluations from the united states to united kingdom improved contemporary comparison equivalents - holstein friesian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2017

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

Extract

The increasing international exchanges of semen and embryos have made it necessary to develop methods for converting bull and cow evaluations from the scale in the country of export to the scale in the country of import. Methods were Initially recommended by the International Dairy Federation (IDF, 1983) and latterly by the International Bull Evaluation Service (Interbull),(Philipsson et al, 1986).

The Interbull recommended methods were compared using United Kingdom (UK) data and one, known as the Goddard method was selected for routine use (Swanson, Bellamy and Oliver, 1988). These methods dealt with direct comparisons whereby progeny test evaluations for the same bulls were available In the two countries for which a conversion was required. In situations where this information is not available or is limited, an indirect conversion involving a third country may be calculated.

Type
Genetics and Reproduction
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (1972) , Volume 1990 , March 1990 , pp. 168
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Production 1990

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

International Dairy Federation. 1983. International comparison ol dairy cattle. Bulletin Document 165.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1989. A summary of the latest results Involving bulls with ICCs and an evaluation in a second country. Report, Breeding and Production Organisation, Milk Marketing Board, No 39.Google Scholar
Philipsson, J., Danell, B., Schaeffer, L. R., Schneeberger, M., Schulle-Coerne, H., and Wilmink, J.B.M. 1986. Procedures lor international comparisons of dairy sires - current practice and evaluation of methods. International Bull Evaluation Service. Bulletin No 1.Google Scholar
Swanson, G.J.T, MrsBellamy, H.J., Oliver, G. 1988. A comparison of methods to convert foreign progeny test evaluations to approximate United Kingdom Improved Contemporary Comparison equivalents (Friesian/Hoistein). Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prodn. Winter Meeting. Paper 112.Google Scholar