Proven and young holstein bulls compared for daughter yields, productive life, somatic cell score, and inbreeding

Journal of Dairy Science

Volumn 85, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 665-669

  Abdallah, J M ^a   McDaniel, B T ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Daughter deviations; Proven bulls; Young bulls

Indexed keywords

AGE; ANIMAL; ANIMAL DISEASE; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; BREEDING; CATTLE; CELL COUNT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CYTOLOGY; FEMALE; GENETICS; INBREEDING; MALE; MILK; PEDIGREE;

AGE FACTORS; ANIMALS; BREEDING; CATTLE; CELL COUNT; FEMALE; INBREEDING; INSEMINATION, ARTIFICIAL; MALE; MILK; PEDIGREE;

EID: 0036510809     PISSN: 00220302     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74121-0     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Abdallah, J. M., and B. T. McDaniel. 2000. Genetic change in milk, fat, days open, and body weight after calving based on three methods of sire selection. J. Dairy Sci. 83:1359-1363.
2. Butcher, K. R., and J. E. Legates. 1973. Lower your risk when sampling young sires. Hoard's Dairyman 118:1033, 1081.
3. Herman, H. A. 1973. You have a stake in sampling young sires. Hoard's Dairyman. 118:1284-1285.
4. Loyd, B. M., and G. L. Hargrove. 1988. First lactation comparisons between daughters of summarized sires and sampling sires in artificial insemination. J. Dairy Sci. 71(Suppl. 1):235. (Abstr.)
5. McCraw, R. L., K. R. Butcher, and B. T. McDaniel. 1980. Progeny tested sires compared with pedigree selected young sires. J. Dairy Sci. 63:1342-1350.
6. McDaniel, B. T., and W. E. Bell. 1992. Experimental comparison of systems of selecting Holstein bulls. J. Dairy Sci. 75(Suppl. 1):150. (Abstr.)
7. Meinert, T. R., R. E. Pearson, and R. S. Hoyt. 1992. Estimates of genetic trend in an artificial insemination progeny test program and their association with herd characteristics. J. Dairy Sci. 75:2254-2264.
8. Powell, R. L., and H. D. Norman. 1989. Genetic differences among categories of service sires. J. Dairy Sci. 72:1847-1853.
9. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 Edition. 1985. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.
10. Sattler, C. G. 1990. A.I. sires will be labeled by sampling methods. Hoard's Dairyman 135:600.
11. Syrstad, O. 1973. There is little difference between daughters of young bulls and those of progeny tested bulls. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 41(4):182.
12. Vinson, W. E., and A. E. Freeman. 1972. Selection of Holstein bulls for future use in artificial insemination. J. Dairy Sci. 55:1621-1630.
13. Weigel, D. J., B. G. Cassell, and R. E. Pearson. 1995. Relative genetic merit and effectiveness of selection of young sires for artificial insemination. J. Dairy Sci. 78:2481-2485.
14. White, J. M. 1975. Choosing and sampling dairy sires: future needs for better sampling methods. J. Dairy Sci. 58:1086-1093.
15. Wiggans, G. R., P. M. VanRaden, and J. Zuurbier. 1995. Calculation and use of inbreeding coefficients for genetic evaluation of United States dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 78:1584-1590.
16. Young, C. W. 1978. Help sample young sires for a better tomorrow. Hoard's Dairyman 123:702-703.