Influences of Progeny Test Programs on Genetic Evaluations of Young Sires

Journal of Dairy Science

Volumn 81, Issue 9, 1998, Pages 2524-2532

  Vierhout, C N ^a   Cassell, B G ^a   Pearson, R E ^a  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Pedigree selection; Progeny testing; Variance; Young sires

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA;

MILK PROTEIN;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BREEDING; CATTLE; CHEMISTRY; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; LACTATION; MALE; MILK; PEDIGREE;

ANIMALS; BREEDING; CATTLE; FEMALE; LACTATION; MALE; MILK; MILK PROTEINS; MODELS, GENETIC; PEDIGREE; VARIATION (GENETICS);

EID: 0032159532     PISSN: 00220302     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(98)70145-6     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Cassell, B. G., R. E. Pearson, M. L. McGilliard, and T. R. Meinert. 1992. Genetic merit and usage patterns of bulls from different sampling programs. J. Dairy Sci. 75:572-579.
2. Dekkers, J.C.M., G. E. Vandervoort, and E. B. Burnside. 1996. Optimal size of progeny groups for progeny-testing programs by artificial insemination firms. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2056-2070.
3. Falconer, D. S. 1989. Introductions to Quantitative Genetics. 3rd rev. ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
4. Ferris, T. A., and G. R. Wiggans. 1991. Accuracy of animal model parent evaluations in predicting PTA for AI sampled bulls. J. Dairy Sci. 74(Suppl. 1):265.(Abstr).
5. Henderson, C. R. 1964. Selecting the young sire to sample in artificial insemination. J. Dairy Sci. 47:439-441.
6. Kuhn, M. T., P. J. Boettcher, and A. E. Freeman. 1994. Potential biases in predicted transmitting abilities of females from preferential treatment. J. Dairy Sci. 77:2428-2437.
7. Lohuis, M. M., J. C. Dekkers, and C. Smith. 1992. Probability of success and predicted returns of sires in progeny test programs. J. Dairy Sci. 75:1660-1671.
8. Meinert, T. R., and R. E. Pearson. 1992. Stability of evaluations of bulls sampled by artificial insemination and other organizations. J. Dairy Sci. 75:564-571.
9. Norman, H. D., T. R. Meinert, M. M. Schultz, and J. R. Wright. 1995. Age and seasonal effects on Holstein yield for four regions of the United States over time. J. Dairy Sci. 78:1855-1861.
10. Norman, H. D., R. L. Powell, J. R. Wright. 1985. Changes of evaluation for natural-service sampled bulls bought into artificial insemination. J. Dairy Sci. 68:1513-1522.
11. Powell, R. L., G. R. Wiggans, H. D. Norman. 1994. Effects of sampling status and adjustment for heterogeneous variance on bias bull evaluation. J. Dairy Sci. 77:883-890.
12. Robertson, A., and J. M. Rendel. 1950. The use of progeny testing with artificial insemination in dairy cattle. J. Genetics. 50:21-31.
13. Samuelson, D. J., and R. E. Pearson. 1995. Accuracy of predicting genetic merit from pedigree information for bulls entering stud sampling programs. J. Dairy Sci. 78:2057-2066.
14. SAS® User's Guide, Statistics, Version 6 Edition. 1989. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.
15. Sattler, C. G. 1990. A.I. Sires will be labeled by sampling methods. Hoard's Dairyman 135:600.
16. Schaeffer, L. R. 1994. Multiple-country comparison of dairy sires. J. Dairy Sci. 77:2671-2678.
17. Van Vleck, L. D. 1976. Theoretical and actual genetic progress in dairy cattle. Page 547 in Proc. Int. Conf. Quant. Genet. August 16-21, 1976. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.
18. Van Vleck, L. D. 1981. Potential genetic impact of artificial insemination, sex selection, embryo transfer, cloning and selfing in dairy cattle. Page 221 in New Technologies in Animal Breeding. Acad. Press, London, England.
19. Van Vleck, L. D., and P. A. Murphy. 1983. Comparisons of dam's genetic evaluation on his sire's and his dam's genetic evaluation. J. Dairy Sci. 66:634-637.
20. Wilson, R. D. 1995. What alternative breeding schemes should be considered? Pages 43-45 in Proc. Natl. Dairy Genet. Workshop, February 19-21, Orlando, FL.