Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:22:19.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An assessment of dairy bull station progeny tests carried out at two centres in Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Lucia Pearson
Lucia Pearson
Affiliation:
Late of The Department of Agriculture, The University of Leeds, Leeds 2, Yorkshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Station progeny tests of twenty-four Ayrshire and twenty-two Friesian bulls were carried out by the British Oil and Cake Mills Ltd. at two centres in Britain between 1953 and 1961. The tests followed the Danish pattern: groups of ten to seventeen daughters were brought to the station approximately 6 weeks before first calving and milked under standardized conditions for an average of 270 days.

2. The place of the station system in modern dairy practice in Britain and abroad was discussed.

3. Earlier results had suggested that milk yield, butterfat percentage, S.N.F. percentage, milking rate and conception interval should be taken into account in a progeny test.

4. Correlations were calculated between the bulls 305-day field ratings for milk yield and fat percentage and their 90- and 270-day station assessments. Possible reasons for the discrepancies were investigated.

5. The selection system employed did not appear to lead normally to the choice of heifers whose dams' milk yield or fat percentage differed from the recorded averages for the breed. In two groups of special cases, deviations were apparent but the effect on the accuracy of the station test was shown to be small. It was concluded that bias due to maternal genetic variation was unlikely to be serious in the general case.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , December 1965 , pp. 315 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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

Bailey, G. L. (1952). J. Dairy Res. 19, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, H. & Reed, H. C. B. (1961). Brit. Vet. J. 117, 18, 78, 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, L. J., Seath, D. M. & Olds, D. (1934). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British Oil And Cake Mills Ltd., The (1953–1961) Reports of Dairy Bull Progeny Tests, Selby, Yorkshire and South Cathkin, Nr. Glasgow.Google Scholar
Brumby, P. (1956). Proc. N.A. Soc. Anim. Prod. 16, 89.Google Scholar
Brumby, P. (1961). Anim. Prod. 3, 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crapp, H. (1937). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 259.Google Scholar
Crichton, J. A., Aitken, J. N. & Boyne, A. W. (1960). Anim. Prod. 2, 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, E. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, F. H. (1953). J. Dairy Res. 20, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. P. (1959). Proc. Xth Int. Congr. Genetics (Montreal, 1958), 1, 225.Google Scholar
Fuller, J. L. (1962). In The Behaviour of Domestic Animals, ed. Hafez, E. S. E.Baltimore, Md.: The Williams Watkins Publ. Co.Google Scholar
Gaines, W. L. (1927). J. Agric. Res. 34, 373.Google Scholar
Guhl, A. M. (1962). In The Behavior of Domestic Animals, ed. Hafez, E. S. E.Baltimore, Md.: The Williams Watkins Publ. Co.Google Scholar
Guhl, A. M. & Atkeson, F. W. (1959). Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. 62, 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, A. (1956). Communication to Professor J. T. Reid, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Herman, J. A. & Edmondson, H. H. (1950). Bull. Univ. Mo. Agric. Exp. Stn. no. 462.Google Scholar
Hofmeyr, J. (1956). Ann. K. Lantbruks-Högskol. 22, 425.Google Scholar
Johansson, I. (1954). Z. Tierzücht. ZüchtBiol. 63, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, I. (1962). Genetic Aspects of Dairy Cattle Breeding. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Larsen, L. H. (1947). Beretn. Forsogs-Lab, Copenhagen, no. 226.Google Scholar
Madden, D. E., Lush, J. L. & Mcgilliard, L. D. (1955). J. Dairy Sci. 38, 1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, I. L. (1952). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. no. 106.Google Scholar
Mason, I. L. & Robertson, A. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 47, 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McArthur, A. T. G. (1954). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. 75.Google Scholar
Menge, A. C, Mares, S. E., Tyler, W. J. & Casida, E. (1962). J. Dairy Sci. 45, 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'connor, L. K. (1959). Proc. XV Int. Dairy Congress, I, 158.Google Scholar
Olds, D. & Seath, D. M. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, L. S. (1964). Ph.D. Thesis. University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Reid, J. T., Loosli, J. K., Trimberqer, G. W., Turk, K. L., Asdell, S. A. & Smith, S. E. (1964). Bull. Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. no. 987.Google Scholar
Rendel, J. M., Robertson, A., Asker, A. A., Khishin, S. S. & Ragab, M. T. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. (1960). J. Agric. Sci. 54, 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. & Mason, I. L. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 47, 376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A., Waite, R. & White, J. C. D. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A., O'connor, K. & Edwards, J. (1960). Anim. Prod. 2, 141.Google Scholar
Rottensten, K. & Touchberry, R. W. (1957). J. Dairy Sci. 40, 1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schein, M. W. & Fohrman, M. H. (1955). Brit. J. Anim. Behav, 3. 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, S. R. (1961). J. Dairy Sci. 44, 283.Google Scholar
Sims, J. A. (1963). Diss. Abstr. 23, 2279.Google Scholar
Touchberry, R. W., Rottensten, K. & Andersen, H. (1960). J. Dairy Sci. 43, 529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanvleck, L. D. (1964). J. Dairy Sci. 47, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanvleck, L. D. & Henderson, C. R. (1961). J. Dairy Sci. 44, 1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veilleux, R. (1963). Advanc. Vet. Sci. 8, 189.Google Scholar
Venge, O. (1963). Lantbr. Högskol. Ann. 29, 187.Google Scholar
Waite, R. W., White, J. C. D. & Robertson, A. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, G. (1959). Anim. Prod. 1, 61.Google Scholar
Williams, G. (1960). Vet. Rec. 72, 147.Google Scholar
Wolff, H. G. (1953). Stress and Disease. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar