Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:25:20.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating the heritability of butterfat production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

S. R. Searle
S. R. Searle
Affiliation:
N.Z. Dairy Board, Wellington, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Part of the variation among butterfat yields in dairy cows arises from genetic differences among the animals. The proportion which this bears to the total variance is known as heritability. In the ‘narrow’ sense it is defined (Lush, 1940), as the proportion of the total variance that is due to additive gene effects; the ‘broad’ sense definition includes genetic variation arising from non-additive gene effects as well as that due to additive effects. Since related animals have a proportion of their genes in common the covariance among their production records can be used for estimating genetic variation and hence heritability. This paper discusses three groups of related animals most frequently used for this purpose, twins, daughter-dam pairs and paternal half-sibs, and presents the results of analysing production records of artificially bred heifers in New Zealand, including evidence of the magnitude of the sampling errors of the heritability estimates.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , November 1961 , pp. 289 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

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

Baker, M. L., Hazel, L. N. & Reinmiller, C. R. (1943). J. Anim. Sci. 2, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumby, P. J. (1960). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 20, 95.Google Scholar
Freeman, A. E. & Henderson, C. R. (1959). J. Dairy Sci. 42, 621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. (1953). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. 35A, 67.Google Scholar
Henderson, C. R. (1953). Biometrics, 9, 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legates, J. E., Verlinden, F. J. & Kendrick, J. F. (1956). J. Dairy Sci. 49, 1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lush, J. L. (1940). Animal Breeding Plans. Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Searle, S. R. (1958). Ann. Math. Statist. 29, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, S. R. (1960). J. Dairy Sci. 43, 821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, S. R. (1961). Ann. Math. Statist, (in the Press).Google Scholar
Searle, S. R. & Henderson, C. R. (1960). J. Dairy Sci. 43, 966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1956). Statistical Methods, 5th ed.Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Specht, L. W. & McGilliard, L. D. (1960). J. Dairy Sci. 43, 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanVleck, L. D., Searle, S. R. & Henderson, C. R. (1960). J. Anim. Sci. 19, 916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar