Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-2pp2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T18:31:43.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The progeny testing of dairy bulls at different levels of production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

I. L. Mason  and
Alan Robertson
I. L. Mason
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh
Alan Robertson
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. An analysis has been made of milk records from 13,000 cows bred by artificial insemination in Denmark.

2. The herds were divided into three equal groups on the basis of their average production. The variance of yield within herds increased as the average yield increased, but the coefficient of variation declined slightly. The genetic variance was more than five times as large in the high-yielding herds than in the low, and correspondingly the heritabilities in low, medium and high herds were 0·05, 0·15 and 0·22 respectively. These were estimated from the variation observed between progeny groups of the same 152 bulls at each production level.

3. No evidence was obtained of any sire-herd interaction for yield, either within or between management levels. The true ranking of bulls for breeding value was apparently the same at all levels.

4. The heritability of fat content in the three groups was 0·27, 0·47 and 0·49 respectively, and no evidence of sire-herd interaction was found.

5. The contemporary comparison method of assessing A.I. bulls for yield was found to have the accuracy expected in theory.

6. These results are discussed in relation to those of other workers with which there are some discrepancies. On our results, a policy of choosing bulls on the basis of their daughters' performance in high-yielding herds should be the most satisfactory way of progeny-testing bulls used in artificial insemination.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , August 1956 , pp. 367 - 375
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Dickerson, G. E. (1940). J. Agric. Res. 61, 561.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1952). Amer. Nat. 86, 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. (1953). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 35, 67.Google Scholar
Harris, G. M., Lush, J. L. & Shuitz, E. N. (1934). J. Dairy Sci. 17, 737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, C. R. (1953). Biometrics, 9, 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, I. (1953). Acta Genet. 4, 221.Google Scholar
Johansson, I. & Hansson, A. (1940). K. Lantbr Akad. Tidskr. Specialhafte, 3, 127 pp.Google Scholar
Korkman, N. (1953). Z. Tierz. ZüchtBiol. 61, 375.Google Scholar
Legates, J. E. (1949). Doct. Thesis, Iowa State College, Ames.Google Scholar
Legates, J. E., Verlinden, F. J. & Kendrick, J. F. (1953). J. Dairy Sci. 36, 585.Google Scholar
Macarthur, A. T. G. (1954). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 75.Google Scholar
Mahadevan, P. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 80.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. (1955). Biometrics, 11, 95.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. & Rendel, J. M. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 184.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. & Mason, I. L. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 47, 376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar