JDS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 75 No. 2 564-571
© 1992 by American Dairy Science Association ®
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Meinert, T. R.
Right arrow Articles by Pearson, R. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Meinert, T. R.
Right arrow Articles by Pearson, R. E.

Stability of Evaluations of and Bulls Sampled by Artificial Insemination and Other Organizations

T. R. Meinert 1 and R. E. Pearson 1

1 Department of Dairy Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg 24061-0315

Changes in evaluations during first and second-crop periods were computed from up to 8 Modified Contemporary Comparison evaluations during each period for 1232 AI- and 217 non-AI-sampled Holstein bulls; repeatability at last Modified Contemporary Comparison evaluation was ge.90. Evaluations were numbered consecutively within period. Effect of evaluation number within testing period on the bull's milk or fat evaluation was estimated with a model, including fixed effect of bull in addition to evaluation number. For subsets of AI- and non-AI-sampled bulls born from 1970 to 1975 and from 1976 to 1981, evaluations of both types of bulls increased from the initial first-crop evaluation and then remained fairly constant during the remainder of the first-crop period. With the inclusion of second-crop daughters, evaluations decreased significantly more for non-AI- than for AI-sampled bulls born from 1970 to 1975 (milk, 108 vs. 28 kg; fat, 3.5 vs. 1 kg). The reduction in evaluations was larger for non-AI-sampled bulls born after 1976 (milk, 184 kg; fat, 7 kg) but was unchanged for AI-sampled bulls. Last second-crop evaluation minus the second to last first-crop evaluation (difference 1) was calculated. Expected standard deviation of change for each difference of each bull was calculated and used to stratify bulls into eight change classes. Percentages of bulls in each class were compared. Relatively more non-AI- than tions that decreased more than could be explained by chance alone. Results indicated that evaluations of non-AI-sampled bulls were less stable than evaluations of AI-sampled bulls and that stability of evaluations of non-AI-sampled bulls has diminished over time. It appears that daughters in the first-crop of many non-AI-sampled bulls have received some kind of preferential treatment.

Key Words: progeny test • evaluation stability • genetic evaluation

Submitted on May 17, 1991
Accepted on August 5, 1991




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
R. L. Powell, A. H. Sanders, and H. D. Norman
Stability of Genetic Evaluations for Active Artificial Insemination Bulls
J Dairy Sci, August 1, 2004; 87(8): 2614 - 2620.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
H. D. Norman, R. L. Powell, J. R. Wright, and C. G. Sattler
Timeliness and Effectiveness of Progeny Testing Through Artificial Insemination
J Dairy Sci, April 1, 2003; 86(4): 1513 - 1525.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1992 by the American Dairy Science Association ®.