Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T03:15:12.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genotype-environment interaction in milk production under Danish and Bulgarian-Czechoslovakian conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P. H. Petersen
P. H. Petersen
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, The Veterinary and Agricultural University, 23 Rolighedsvej, 1958 Copenhagen V, Denmark
Get access

Summary

First lactation records from 971 daughters of 93 Red Danish Milk-breed bulls exported as pregnant heifers from Denmark to 4 Bulgarian and 21 Czechoslovakian herds were analysed and compared to results from corresponding half-sib groups under Danish field progeny tests. Average butterfat production in East European tests was 75% of that in Danish tests.

The results indicate that the true genetic variance and the heritabilities for milk yield, fat content and butterfat yield are higher under the Danish conditions than under the corresponding East European conditions. The genetic correlations between the two environments are estimated to be 0·91, 0·97 and 0·79 for milk yield, fat content and butterfat yield, respectively. Because of insufficient correction for environmental effects, these estimates are considered to be lower than the true parameters.

It is concluded that selection of proven sires in the Danish main population for use in the small East European subpopulations will result in a higher genetic improvement rate than will sire testing and selection within the subpopulations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , October 1975 , pp. 101 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1975

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

Averdunk, G. and Alps, H. 1971. [The interaction between herd level and sire in the milk production of Red Pied Cattle in Bayern.] Z. Tierzucht. ZúchtBiol. 88: 197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, K. and Venge, O. 1970. [Genetic studies based on 130 days and 305 days lactation yields by Danish Red and Danish Friesian.] Ugeskr. Agr. 115: 316–322; 346-351.Google Scholar
Christensen, L. Gjøl. 1969. [A comparative evaluation of progeny test at station and in milk recorded herds.] Arbog, Landek. Forsøgslab. 454–472.Google Scholar
Christensen, L. Gjøl. 1970. Progeny testing of dairy sires based on field and test-station data. I. Phenotypic and genetic relations. Ada Agric. scand. 20: 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, L. Gjøl. 1974. Progeny testing of dairy sires based on field and test-station data. II. Half sib and half cousin analysis. Ada. Agric. scand. 24: 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elleby, F. 1965. [Studies concerning the production of first lactation cows.] Meddelelse 2. Landbrugsmin. produktivitetsudv. Husdyrbrugsudv. Arhus.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1972. Instructions for use of LSMLMM (Least-squares and Maximum Likelihood General Purpose Program 252 K Mixed Model Version). Ohio State University (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Lytton, V. H. and Legates, J. E. 1966. Sire by region interaction for production traits in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 49: 874–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, B. T. and Corley, E. L. 1967. Relationships between sire evaluations at different herdmate levels. J. Dairy Sci. 50: 735–741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, I. L. and Robertson, A. 1956. The progeny testing of dairy bulls at different levels of production. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 47: 367–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, H. D., McDaniel, B. T. and Dickinson, F. N. 1972. Conflict between heritability estimates of mature equivalent and herdmate-deviation milk and fat. J. Dairy Sci. 55: 507–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. 1959. The sampling of the genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics 15: 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. 1966. A mathematical model of the culling process in dairy cattle. Anim. Prod. 8: 95–108.Google Scholar
Robertson, A., O'Connor, L. K. and Edwards, J. 1960. Progeny testing dairy breeds at different management levels. Anim. Prod. 2: 141–152.Google Scholar
Ronningen, K. 1972. The effect of selection of progeny performance on the heritability estimated by half-sib correlation. Ada Agric. scand. 22: 90–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syrstad, O. 1966. Studies on dairy herd records. IV. Estimates of phenotypic and genetic parameters. Acta Agric. scand. 16: 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touchberry, R. W., Rottensten, K. and Andersen, H. 1960. A comparison of dairy sire progeny tests made at special Danish testing stations with tests made in farmer herds. J. Dairy Sci. 43: 529–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanvleck, L. D. 1963. Genotype and environment in sire evaluation. J. Dairy Sci. 46: 983–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanvleck, L. D. 1966. Change in variance components associated with milk records with time and increase in mean production. Dairy Sci. 49: 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar