AGRONOMIJAS VÄSTIS - Latvijas LauksaimniecÄ«bas universitÄte

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>AGRONOMIJAS</strong> VĒSTIS (Latvian Journal of Agronomy), No.10, LLU, 2008The best bulls showed various EBV of milk yield (Table 3).Table 3. The best bulls by EBV of milk yield, kg (REL ≥ 50 %)RankI group II group III group IV groupHB No. EBV HB No. EBV HB No. EBV HB No. EBV1 29616 1074 31352 1966 29616 1062 31352 19562 31352 987 31415 1710 31352 994 31415 17423 31415 918 31399 1495 31415 945 31399 15904 31109 913 31476 1322 31109 912 31467 13665 30870 876 31277 1317 30870 869 31466 13526 31277 816 31332 1290 31467 840 31476 13507 31476 800 31467 1280 31476 829 31332 13348 31467 770 31466 1263 31110 814 31277 13159 31110 769 29616 1249 31277 809 29616 123710 31108 711 31311 1185 31332 750 31311 1178The 1 st best bulls have EBV from 1062 to 1966 kg, but the 10 th best from 711 to 1185 kg.The ranking gives the following results: a total of 14 bulls were included in all top lists of the studygroups, int. al. 6 bulls of ZS, 7 bulls of HS and one of DS breed. There are bulls that showedsimilar ranking (only bulls with herd book number (HB No.), REL of EBV ≥ 50 %): the bull of ZSbreed (HB No. 29616) has the 1 st and 9 th position; the bull of HS breed (HB No. 31352) has the 1 stand 2 nd position, but the bull of HS breed (HB No. 31415) has the 2 nd and 3 rd position in all groups.Additional results are drawn from the ranking of bulls by EBV of fat yield (Table 4).Table 4. The best bulls by EBV of fat yield, kg (REL ≥ 50 %)RankI group II group III group IV groupHB No. EBV HB No. EBV HB No. EBV HB No. EBV1 31488 71.1 31488 93.6 31488 69.3 31488 90.62 31109 46.7 31415 80.4 31415 46.7 31415 85.33 31415 46.1 31352 74.9 31109 45.9 31352 77.64 31277 45.6 31485 74.3 31277 45.4 31485 75.55 31485 44.3 31399 65.3 31485 44.5 31399 72.46 31108 43.6 31277 64.7 31108 44.5 31277 66.17 31393 41.4 31311 61.9 31393 41.0 31311 63.68 31352 38.8 31396 55.7 31489 40.5 31109 55.19 31489 38.5 31489 54.9 31352 39.1 31396 55.110 31396 36.9 31109 54.1 31396 35.9 31489 54.7Total 12 bulls were included in all lists. It shows that the large variation of EBV gives asimilar ranking of bulls. The group of the best bulls is made from 5 HS, 4 DS and 3 ZS breed bulls.There were eight bulls in all and four bulls in two study groups as the best. The 1 st positionof ranking of all groups has the bull of the DS breed (HB No. 31488) which showed EBV resultsfrom 69.3 kg to 93.6 kg. The bull of HS breed (HB No. 31415) has the 2 nd and 3 rd position ofranking in all groups and showed EBV results from 46.1 kg to 85.3 kg.The ranking of the best bulls by EBV of protein yield has created additional sign results inthe study (Table 5). There were 12 bulls repeatedly included in all groups, int. al. 6 ZS, 4 HS and 2DS breed bulls. Each bull was included in the top list not only in one group. Total 7 bulls in allgroups, 2 bulls in 3 groups and 3 bulls in 2 groups as the best ones were included in the top list.296
<strong>AGRONOMIJAS</strong> VĒSTIS (Latvian Journal of Agronomy), No.10, LLU, 2008The 1 st position in two groups has two bulls: the bull of ZS breed (HB No. 31109) showedEBV results from 35.5 kg to 37.3 kg when fixed HTD effect included in the model was used, thebull of HS breed (HB No. 31352) showed EBV results from 58.4 kg to 59.9 kg when fixed DTDeffect included in the model as used.Table 5. The best bulls by EBV of protein yield, kg (REL ≥ 50 %)RankTDM (I) TDM (II) TDM (III) TDM (IV)HB No. EBV HB No. EBV HB No. EBV HB No. EBV1 31109 35.5 31352 58.4 31109 37.3 31352 59.92 29616 32.0 31415 49.3 29616 34.3 31415 52.83 31108 29.6 31488 43.9 31108 33.1 31399 45.24 31352 28.0 31485 43.6 31352 29.8 31485 43.85 31488 28.0 31277 41.7 31110 29.4 31277 43.16 31393 27.8 31109 41.1 31415 28.5 31488 42.07 31413 27.2 31399 38.5 31488 28.1 31109 41.08 31277 26.0 29616 37.3 31393 28.1 31393 37.59 31110 25.8 31393 36.8 31413 26.7 29616 35.810 31415 25.4 31110 35.5 31277 26.4 31413 35.6The calculation of reliability is a measure of accuracy. It provides a measure of the degreeof risk associated with the evaluation. Reliability measurements using TDM and LM are shown inTable 6.The average reliability of bulls are in the range from 70 % to 82 % for milk yield, from 69% to 81 % for fat yield and from 72 % to 83 % for protein yield. Using LM these values are 67 %,63 % and 63 %, respectively for milk, fat and protein yield. It showed that using TDM reliabilityrates are higher by 3 % to 20 %. Higher differences of reliability are obtained for protein yield (3 –15 %), but lower for milk yield (9 – 20 %) using results from both TD and LM.Reliability estimates are higher for younger sires using TDM. The differences betweenTDM and LM estimates are from 2 % – 17 % for older sires and 14 % – 27 % for younger sires.It is possible to include different number of daughters in the evaluation using a differentmodel at the same time. There are 7 daughters per sire more in average using TDM. Resultsshowed that the number of daughters per sire increases by birth year, int. al. for younger sires.Table 6. Reliability (REL) of productivity traits, %ParameterModelBirth year of bullsIninformation
Page 1 and 2:
LATVIJAS LAUKSAIMNIECĪBAS UNIVERSI
Page 4 and 5:
AGRONOMIJAS VĒSTIS (Latvian Journa
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247: AGRONOMIJAS VĒSTIS (Latvian Journa
show all

AGRONOMIJAS VÄSTIS - Latvijas LauksaimniecÄ«bas universitÄte

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?

AGRONOMIJAS VÄSTIS - Latvijas LauksaimniecÄ«bas universitÄte