Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:55:50.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The inheritance of milk production characteristics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. M. Rendel ,
Alan Robertson ,
A. A. Asker ,
S. S. Khishin  and
M. T. Ragab
J. M. Rendel
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh
Alan Robertson
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh
A. A. Asker
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh
S. S. Khishin
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh
M. T. Ragab
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 3109 cattle of the six main dairy breeds in England and Wales.

2. The correlation between measurements on separate lactations declined as the time interval between the lactations increased. The average correlation was 0·38 for 70 days' milk yield and 0·48 and 0·55 respectively for milk yield and fat content in the 305-day lactation.

3. The heritabilities of the three measurements measured by daughter-dam regression were found for heifer lactations to be 0·36, 0·43 and 0·43 respectively. On second lactations, they were 0·09, 0·24 and 0·42.

4. As a consequence of the low heritability of the second lactation yield, the average yield of the first four lactations proved to have no more value as a prediction of a cow's breeding merit for yield than did her heifer yield.

5. In agreement with other workers, we found that 70-days yield was an excellent guide to the total lactation (r ~ 0·80), and that it could be used as a guide to early selection.

6. There was some indication that the correlation between yield and fat content in the same lactation was more strongly negative in heifers and in the Channel Island breeds. The overall genetic correlation on first lactations was found to be − 0·66 ± 0·20, rather more strongly negative than has been found previously.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , April 1957 , pp. 426 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

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

Berry, J. C. (1945). J. Dairy Sci. 28, 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazel, L. N. (1943). Genetics, 28, 476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, I. (1950). Anim. Breed. Abstr. 18, 1.Google Scholar
Johansson, I. (1955). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod., p. 102.Google Scholar
Johansson, I. & Hansson, A. (1940). K. Lantbr.Akad. Handl., Stockh., Nr. 6½.Google Scholar
Laben, R. C. & Herman, H. A. (1950). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta., no. 459.Google Scholar
Lush, J. L. (1948). Proc. 8th Int. Cong. Genetics, 356.Google Scholar
Lush, J. L. & Shultz, E. N. (1936). J. Dairy Sci. 19, 975.Google Scholar
Madden, D. E., Lush, J. L. & McGilliard, L. (1955). J. Dairy Sci. 38, 1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahadevan, P. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, I. L. & Robertson, A. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 47, 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plum, M. M. (1935). J. Dairy Sci. 18, 811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. (1955). Biometrics, 11, 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A., Waite, R. & White, J. C. D. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikka, L. C. (1950). J. Dairy Res. 17, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, W. J. & Hyatt, G. (1947). J. Anim. Sci. 6, 479.Google Scholar