Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T23:26:20.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluation of genetic trends for milk yield and somatic cell counts in the Holstein breed in terms of changes in the lactation curve

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

R Mrode*
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Penicuik, United Kingdom
M P Coffey
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Penicuik, United Kingdom
K Moore
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Penicuik, United Kingdom
Get access

Extract

The use of test day model (TDM) for genetic evaluation results in predicted transmitting abilities (PTAs) for any stage of lactation. However, in the United Kingdom (UK), publication and selection of parents are still based on PTAs computed on a 305-day basis from the random regression coefficients of the TDM. It is expected from selection index theory, that selection on 305-day PTAs would place different weights on PTAs at different days in milk (DIM). This could result in changes in the lactation curve of animals over time as a result of genetic progress. This study evaluates genetic trends in terms of changes in PTAs at different DIM for production traits and somatic cell counts (SCC) in the Holstein breed. In addition, the inclusion of SCC in the national profitable life index (£PLI) is based on its relationship with milk computed on a 305-day basis. This study also examines what impact such selection has on the relationship between PTAs for milk and SCC at different DIM.

Type
Theatre Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2009

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

Mrode, R.A and Swanson, G.J.T. 2003. Livestock Science 79:239–247 Google Scholar
Mrode, R., Brotherstone, S., White, I.., Swanson, G., Coffey, M., Jones, H., and Thompson, R. 2005. Interbull bulletin 33, 211–214.Google Scholar