Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:06:31.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The effect of increasing the interval between recordings on genetic parameters of test day yields of British Holstein-Friesian heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. L. Pander
Affiliation:
Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT
R. Thompson
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research, Edinburgh Research Station, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
W. G. Hill
Affiliation:
Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT
Get access

Abstract

The effect of increasing the interval between recordings from 1 month to 2 months was studied by analysis of milk, fat and protein yield records obtained in alternate monthly herd visits. The data comprised records on over 34 000 daughters of 40 proven and 705 young sires which were analysed by multivariate restricted maximum likelihood.

Heritability estimates of bimonthly test day records were similar to the average of the estimates for the two corresponding monthly test day records, as were genetic and phenotypic correlations between bimonthly test day and lactation records. A quartic regression removed most of the additional variance due to the wide range of days to first test and therefore the variance-covariance structure of bimonthly test day records could be predicted from that of monthly test day records.

The accuracies of prediction of breeding value for 305-day yields of milk, fat and protein using the sum of five bimonthly test day records and the sum of seven 6-weekly tests were estimated to be at least 0·97 and 0·99, respectively, of the accuracy of using 10 monthly test day records.

If milk yield were recorded daily, prediction of lactation fat or protein yield from the product of the sum of daily milk yields and the average fat or protein content would be more accurate than using yield and content records solely from test days.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

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

Anderson, S. M., Mao, I. L. and Gill, J. L. 1989. Effect of frequency and spacing of sampling on accuracy and precision of estimating total lactation milk yield and characteristics of the lactation curve, journal of Dairy Science 72: 23872394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danell, B. 1990. Genetic aspects of different parts of lactation. Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Edinburgh, Vol. 14, pp. 114117.Google Scholar
Kendall, M. G. and Stuart, A. 1963. The advanced theory of statistics. Vol. I. Distribution theory. 2nd ed. Griffin, London.Google Scholar
Keown, J. F. and Van Vleck, L. D. 1971. Selection on test day fat percentage and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 54:199203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, B. T. 1969. Accuracy of sampling procedures for estimating lactation yields: a review. Journal of Dairy Science 52: 17421761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. 1986. Restricted maximum likelihood to estimate genetic parameters-in practice. Proceedings of the third world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Nebraska, vol. 12, pp. 454459.Google Scholar
Meyer, K., Graser, H. U. and Hammond, K. 1989. Estimates of genetic parameters for first lactation test day production of Australian Black and White cows. Livestock Production Science 21:177199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pander, B. L., Hill, W. G. and Thompson, R. 1992. Genetic parameters of test day records of British Holstein-Friesian heifers. Animal Production 55:1121.Google Scholar
Patterson, H. D. and Thompson, R. 1971. Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58: 545554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar