UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Modified method of reporting record of performance in Canadian Ayrshire cattle Gyles , Nicholas Roy 1949

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1949_A4 G8 M6.pdf [ 9.97MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106796.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106796-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106796-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106796-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106796-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106796-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106796-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106796-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106796.ris

Full Text

A MODIFIED METHOD OF REPORTING RECORD OF PERFORMANCE I N CANADIAN AYRSHIRE CATTLE BY N . R . GYLES A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE I N AGRICULTURE I N THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA A P R I L 1949 I ACKNOWLEDGMENT» The author takes t h i s opportunity to thank Dr. J.C.Berry, Associate Professor i n the Department of Animal Husbandry, for his thoughtful d i r e c t i o n , tolerance, and constructive c r i t i c i s m of this work. "PAGE. I. INTRODUCTION 1. TIT A. A REVIEW OF CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS ON MANNER AND MODE OF MILK AND FAT SECRETION. 4. 1) NUMBER OF TIMES MILKED PER DAY 2) AGE OF COW 3) STAGE OF LACTATION 4) SEASON OF YEAR B. THE MODE OF INHERITANCE OF MILK AND FAT PRODUCING ABILITY IT!. THE SIRE INDEX PROBLEM 10. 1) A REVIEW OF PRESENT SIRE INDEXES 2) PREDICTING FUTURE DAUGHTERS' PRODUCTION 3) EVALUATING PEDIGREES 4) THE SIRE INDEX IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN GENETICS 5) THE NUMBER OF DAUGHTERS NECESSARY TO PROVE A SIRE 6) THE USE OF FIRST RECORDS VERSUS THE AVERAGE OF ALL RECORDS IN DAM-DAUGHTER COMPARISONS, WHEN PROVING SIRES IV. THE CANADIAN SYSTEM OF RECORD OF PERFORMANCE IN DAIRY CATTLE 20. 1) ADMINISTRATION 2) THE PRESENT METHOD OF REPORTING CANADIAN RECORD OF PERFORMANCE IN DAIRY CATTLE. 3) CANADIAN AYRSHIRE RECORD OF PERFORMANCE, STANDARDS FOR REGISTRATION P A G E . (continued) 4) RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING RECORD OF PERFORMANCE TESTING 5) C R I T I C I S M OF THE PRESENT CANADIAN SYSTEM OF RECORD OF PERFORMANCE I N DAIRY CATTLE 6) S U I T A B I L I T Y OF HIGH RECORDS AS CONTRASTED WITH UNSELECTED RECORDS AND WITH AVERAGE RECORDS AS A BASIS FOR SELECTING COWS 7) R E L I A B I L I T Y OF AVERAGES OF DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF LACTATION RECORDS FOR COMPARING DAIRY COWS 8) C R I T I C I S M , B Y THE AUTHOR, OF THE PRESENT METHOD OF REPORTING RECORD OF PERFORMANCE I N CANADA THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF RECORD OF PERFORMANCE I N DAIRY CATTLE 33 1) THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF RECORD OF PERFORMANCE I N DAIRY CATTLE 2) POLICY OF THE NATIONAL TESTING PROGRAM OF THE UNITED STATES 3) THE METHOD USED B Y THE AMERICAN AYRSHIRE BREEDERS' ASSOCIATION TO REPORT PERFORMANCE OF DAIRY CATTLE 4) C R I T I C I S M , BY THE AUTHOR, OF THE PRESENT METHOD OF REPORTING RECORD OF PERFORMANCE OF AYRSHIRES I N THE UNITED STATES V I . A NEW SYSTEM OF REPORTING RECORD OF PERFORMANCE I N CANADIAN AYRSHIRE CATTLE 39 PAGE V I I . EXPERIMENTAL WORK 41 1) OBJECTIVE 2) PROCEDURE 3) DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING CALCULATIONS 4) DISCUSSION OF THE THREE UNIVERSITY OF B . C . S I R E INDEXES 5) RELATIVE MERITS OF A L L RECORDS INDEXES AND FIRST RECORD INDEXES PROPOSED APPROVED SIRE PLAN FOR CANADIAN AYRSHIRES C L A S S I F I C A T I O N OF AYRSHIRE COWS ON PERFORMANCE INCOMPLETE RECORDS V I I I . AYRSHIRE HERD TEST PLAN 100 I X . RECOMMENDATIONS 107 X. SUMMARY 109 APPENDIX ABSTRACT &AJV+*> l ^ ^ ^ l ^ f t T . INTRODUCTION Dairy farming i s practised primarily f©r economic gain. Two main factors contribute towards production of milk and f a t . These two factors are the hereditary material of the herd and the en-vironment i n which the herd l i v e s . Inheritance and environment i n t e r -act and determine production. The dairy farmer must, therefore, aim at e s t a b l i s h i n g , maintaining, and improving the hereditary material i n the herd. This can be achieved through the use of a planned s c i e n t i f i c breeding program. In order to enable c a t t l e to produce to the capacity of t h e i r genetic p o t e n t i a l , optimum environment must be provided, through proper management, feeding and freedom from disease. Thus the following main factors, which condition the performance of the dairy cow, are of paramount importance to the dairy-man :-Breeding, management, feeding and freedom from disease. I t i s e s s e n t i a l that the farmer keep accurate accounts, of the record of performance, of a l l the c a t t l e i n the herd at a l l times. This i s necessary so that he can assess at any time, the true value of the animals. This information serves to guide the breeding program, also the feeding p r a c t i c e , and can i n some instances indicate the presence of disease i n animals. The record of performance of a b u l l i n a herd i s of greater importance than the record of performance of any one cow. This i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the old saying that - 'a good b u l l i s h a l f the herd, while a poor b u l l i s the whole herd*. The performance of a b u l l i s stated i n terms of pounds milk,pounds f a t , and percentage of f a t . These figures represent the average transmitting a b i l i t y of the b u l l to 2-the o f f s p r i n g , and, c o l l e c t i v e l y the figures are referred to as the s i r e index. A s i r e index i s calculated from a knowledge of the pro-duction i n terms of, milk and f a t , of the daughters of a b u l l and also the production of th e i r respective dams. Breed Associations are formed with the prime object of working i n the best interests of the p a r t i c u l a r breed. The functions of a Breed Association include the encouraging and furthering of any project that may improve the i n d i v i d u a l herd and the breed as a whole. The place of Government i n Democracy i s to provide a framework within which the i n d i v i d u a l may prosper. Consequently through co-operation of the Department of Agriculture and the Breed Associations, a voluntary system for t e s t i n g the performance of purebred c a t t l e has been es-tablished. This system, which i s termed The Canadian Record of Per-formance for Purebred Dairy C a t t l e , gives o f f i c i a l recognition to the production of dairy c a t t l e • These figures are made available to the farmer for his own use. In order to promote the best use of these figures by the farmer, they must be presented i n as simple a form as p o s s i b l e . This i s necessary because most farmers have not the time, nor the patience, nor the desire, to detach themselves from t h e i r d a i l y prac-t i c a l endeavours and engage themselves with calculations that even bear the s l i g h t e s t signs of complexity. The present system does have value both to the i n d i v i d u a l dairyman and to the entire industry. However, i f a more simple, and more r e a d i l y applicable system were developed, i t i s f e l t that a greater degree of accuracy i n s e l e c t i o n and breeding practice would r e s u l t * I t i s important,therefore, that some research be c a r r i e d out, with a view to developing a simple system of reporting Record of Performance, which w i l l be r e a d i l y appreciated and used advantage by the dairy farmer* Such i s the aim of this endeavour. I I, A REVIEW OF CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS ON MANNER AND MODE OF MILK AND FAT SECRETION. Espe has discussed at length several f a c t o r s , which condition the quantity of milk and f a t secreted by the dairy cow. (1) Number of Rimes Milked per Day> By milking at shorter intervals,from four to six hours, the pressure i n the udder i s re l i e v e d with a r e s u l t i n g increased rate of secretion, and a greater t o t a l y i e l d . This r e l i e v -ing of pressure by frequent milking tends to increase the t o t a l f a t y i e l d r e l a t i v e l y more than the t o t a l milk y i e l d . At l e a s t , the fat te s t i s usually higher when cows are milked frequently than when milked less often. Experiments indicate that there i s commonly a 10-15 P©r cent increase i n milk production, r e s u l t i n g from milking a cow three times per day as compared with twice a day. Also a 15-25 per cent increase may be expected from four times per day milking as compared with twice a day. However, as the rate of secretion declines with advancing l a c t a t i o n , and the in t r a - a l v e o l a r pressure f a i l s to r i s e as high between milkings as i n the e a r l i e r part of the l a c t a t i o n period, the advantage of more frequent milking i s le s s apparent* (2) Age of Cow: Although .the t o t a l amount of milk produced tends to increase u n t i l the cow i s about eight years of age, the increase after the f i f t h year i s r e l a t i v e l y unimportant. Milk flow increases with increasing age,but at a constantly diminishing r a t e , u n t i l a maximum i s reached. After the age of maximum flow i s passed,the flow diminishes with advancing age and at an increasing r a t e . The rate of decrease a f t e r the maximum i s much slower than the rate of increase preceding the maximum. The increase of body weight contributes about twenty per cent to the t o t a l increase i n fat production with age, while eighty per cent of the increase i n f a t production with age i s due to the development of the mammary glands with recurring pregnancy. There i s also a slow but persistent decrease i n the f a t percentage of the milk as the cow becomes older. This drop i s unimportant from a p r a c t i c a l standpoint since the tes t usually f a i l s to drop more than two to three tenths of one per cent during the entire l i f e time of the cow. (3) Stage of Lactation. Following p a r t u r i t i o n the d a i l y production of milk tends to increase with most cows for a period of f i f t e e n to t h i r t y days. The time required to reach maximum production with high producing animals i s usually longer than that required for low producing animals. After a period of t h i r t y to f i f t y days, the production usually begins to decline gradually. Factors besides i n d i v i d u a l i t y and breed, which a f f e c t the decline i n milk production are frequency of milking, age, seasonal changes, state of n u t r i t i o n , pregnancy and general management. During the l a c t a t i o n period the percentage of f a t i n the milk varies inversely with the amount of milk secreted, although not i n d i r e c t proportion. 5 . * Eckles, Combs, and Macy give the following figures to show the production trends i n a normal l a c t a t i o n . Month of Lactation Av.Daily Milk Y i e l d (Pounds) Milk Y i e l d Percentage of Highest Yield Fat Content Percentage 1 32.9 99.6 4.07 2 33.0 100.0 3.94 3 30.3 92.0 4.06 4 28.4 86.0 4.00 5 27.0 82 .0 4.10 6 24 .7 75.0 4.10 7 23.4 71.0 4.17 8 22.7 69.0 4.20 9 21.1 64.0 4.20 10 17.1 52.0 4.50 11 11.3 34.0 4.59 12 3.8 11.5 4.70 (4) Season of Year. Feed changes with season, hence there i s a change i n n u t r i t i o n a l e f f e c t with change of season. However, due to changes other than feeding, cows usually test from f i f t e e n to twenty per cent lower i n summer than i n winter. Some experimental work indicates that there i s an increase of at le a s t 0.2 per cent i n the f a t test for every 10 degrees drop i n temperature between 30° and 70° F. Cows normally testing high are influenced to a greater degree than cows with low fat t e s t s . The exact reason for th i s change i n fat content of the milk i s not cl e a r , although i t i s generally agreed that environmental temperature i s l a r g e l y responsible for seasonal variations i n the percentage of f a t i n the milk, and that these variations are inversely proportional to the temperature. This inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p may not hold true for excessively high temperatures. The t o t a l yearly y i e l d of milk i s usually 10 to 20 per cent greater when the cow freshens i n the F a l l or Winter, than i n the Spring or Summer. This increase i s probably the r e s u l t of more favourable environmental conditions i n Winter and more d i g e s t i b l e feeds. I I. (B) THE MODS OF INHERITANCE OF MILK AMD FAT PRODUCING ABILITY. Turner discusses the main factors affecting milk and fa t production, and l a t e r proceeds to suggest the manner i n which these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are inhe r i t e d . The expression of quantitative production i s greatly influenced by environment. This i s e s p e c i a l l y true of the a b i l i t y of the dairy cow to secrete milk and fat during a l a c t a t i o n period. The production of the dairy cow i s influenced by feed and management, not only during the l a c t a t i o n period, but also during the period of growth and development. Such factors as pregnancy, seasonal temperature, season of freshening, and frequency of milking have an e f f e c t on maximum production. It i s probable that only a few cows f u l l y demonstrate t h e i r inheritance. Yet under o f f i c i a l test conditions of feeding, management, and v e r i f i c a t i o n of records, there i s a large group of production records which approach f u l l demonstration of the inheritance of p o t e n t i a l a b i l i t y fo r milk and f a t secretion. it Turner states that a t r a i t or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which i s v i s i b l e i n a physical sense i s the resultant of the presence and a c t i v i t y of a gene or genes i n the c e l l s of the developing organism. A character-i s t i c may be the resultant of one gene or of many genes acting together. On the other hand a single gene may influence many c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The production of milk and fat i s probably the resultant of many genes. Many body c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e l a t e to milk and f a t production, namely, body size development of mammary gland, and favourable hormone balance. Thus milk and fat production r e s u l t s from the harmonious functioning of many parts of the body. The usual theory of multiple factors i n blending inheritance assumes a lack of dominance, and that each gene i s equal to every other gene i n i t s influence on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c affected. S h u l l states that the postulation of lack of dominance, which has always been made the basis of the in t e r p r e t a t i o n of multiple factor inheritance, may not be correct. It i s doubtful whether the several genes involved express equal influences. Blending inheritance may be caused by genes of unequal influence, some of which may be dominant, others recessive, and some lacking dominance. Turner sets f o r t h the following three point theory on the mode of milk and fat inheritance:-1. Milk and fat secretion by the dairy cow i s influenced by many genes. Since milk and f a t production depends on the har-monious functioning of many parts of the body, i t i s very probable that many genes are involved. Also, the extreme v a r i a t i o n i n f a t production i n dairy c a t t l e from about 100 pounds up to 1200 pounds i s an exceptionally wide range, and indicates that many genes are concerned. 2. Many of the genes favouring high production are dominants. In the case of milk and f a t production i t has been suggested that while there may be some genes influencing t h i s char-a c t e r i s t i c , which lack dominance, yet the great majority display at lea s t p a r t i a l dominance. Turner^cites the conclusion reached by Gowen, from a comparative study of four Angus cross-bred daughters with t h e i r dams, as well as from data taken from advanced Registry records, that high milk y i e l d i s dominant over low y i e l d . This dominance i s not complete, the y i e l d of the crossbreeds r e a l l y being i n t e r -mediate, but nearer to that of the high y i e l d i n g l i n e . This 9 theory of dominance i s opposed by some, e s p e c i a l l y the adherents to heterosis. Turner concludes by saying that i t seems reasonable to sum up the s i t u a t i o n , by saying that i t i s not known whether the high y i e l d i n g or low yi e l d i n g factors are dominants or recess-i v e s j nor whether some of each kinds are dominants and some recessives. 3. A l l genes do not have the same e f f e c t . From the nature of the widely varying c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , which i n t h e i r z summation r e s u l t i n milk and f a t production, i t seems improbable that a l l genes a f f e c t i n g a l l the associated characters would be equal i n e f f e c t . I I I ! THE SIRE INDEX PROBLEM (1) A Review of Present Sire Indexes. A number of indexes have been suggested i n recent years. These aim at making allowances for the u n r e l i a b i l i t y of the pro-duction of the dams as a basis for estimating t h e i r contribution to t h e i r o f f s p r i n g , and for the tendency for regression towards the breed average. Rice states what a s i r e index should be and what i t should do as follows. I t should bes-1) Sound from a genetic standpoint. 2) E a s i l y arrived at and understandable. 3) Calculated i n terms of the breed average. 4) Comparable i n v a r i a b i l i t y to groups of animals rather than to i n d i v i d u a l s . I t should do the following:-5) Rank b u l l s i n t h e i r proper order. 6) Provide a d e f i n i t e measuring s t i c k for the b u l l ' s trans-mitting performance. 7) Provide a means for predicting future daughters 1 production. 8) Provide as accurate a means as possible for evaluating ;i pedigrees •> At one time, dairy b u l l s were judged on the basis of t h e i r daughters' production alone. This cannot be correct, since i t does not take into account the f a c t that the l e v e l of the dams' product-io n influences t h e i r daughters' production. I t i s well established that the genetic make-up of the cows to which a b u l l i s mated, w i l l influence the production of his daughters. Rice points out that there i s a d e f i n i t e corre-l a t i o n between records of daughters and dams. The influence of environment has also to he con-sidered. In most cases daughters and dams are tested i n the same herd. I f the environment of that herd i s better than average, both records are l i k e l y to be raised, and vice versa. Thus the amount of environmental e f f e c t on daughter-dam c o r r e l a t i o n depends both on how widely the average environment differs;, from herd to herd In the material being studied, and on how much influence these environmental differences have on milk and fa t production. Some years ago H.W.Norton, J r . , i n some unpublished work suggested an index based on the p r i n c i p l e of regression. I t has long been observed that the progeny of cows above the average productive a b i l i t y of the breed tend to produce above the breed average but le s s than their dams, and that daughters of cows below the breed average tend to produce below the breed average but not as far below as t h e i r dams. Norton proposed that the expected production of the daughters (from dams of given l e v e l ) should be substituted for the dams' actual average production f i g u r e , and then proceed i n the usual equal-parent fashion. This formula would be:-INDEX - 2 X - E where X - daughters' average and E > daughters' average expectation. Allen'proposed a modification of Norton's index for rating of s i r e s . Twice the deviation of the s i r e ' s daughters' pro-duction from the expected i s added to the breed average for p o t e n t i a l performance of the sire,'To estimate probable production of future daughters, the deviation of his daughters' from expected i s added to the expected production estimated for daughters of the cows to which /I-he i s mated. This method applies the equal-parent p r i n c i p l e with an allowance for regression and general differences of environment. Almost simultaneously, Rice, who studied the problem of daughter-dam cor r e l a t i o n s , published a method f o r evaluating progeny-tested s i r e s , based on the same fundamental concepts. This method d i f f e r s from All e n ' s , i n that the deviation from expected pro-duction i s not doubled before adding to the breed average. The basis of t h i s new index i s finding the difference between h i s daughters' actual and normally expected productions and adding t h i s difference to the breed average. This index proposed by Rice d i f f e r s from the equal parent index, i n that the l a t t e r system deals with the actual records of dams and daughters, without s p e c i f i c reference to the breed average. Summary of indexes:-EQUAL -PARENT • X / X - Y. X= daughters' average production NORTON = X / X - E. Y= dam's average production RICE = W / X - E. E= daughters' expectation W« breed average tt Lush has pointed out that nearly a l l of the pro-posals for expressing numerically the transmitting a b i l i t y of a dairy s i r e are special forms of the general equation:-1 = a / c ( x - by) where I = the index a = a constant which brings the average of the whole group of indexes to the desired l e v e l , but does not a l t e r the difference between any two s i r e s . c = a constant which can be used to expand or contract the v a r i a -b i l i t y of I without changing any c o r r e l a t i o n between i t and other variables. x = the average record of the daughters of the s i r e /3 Y = the average record of the dams of those daughters, b « a constant which determines the r e l a t i v e emphasis on Y as compared with X. The equal-parent index sets (a) equal to zero but (b) to 0 .5 and (c> to 2; i . e . I = 2 (x - 0.5 Y) Rice's index sets c= 1, b - 0 .5 and a = b times the breed average; when I = 0.5 (breed average), / X - 0.5 Y. Rice's index i s the equal parent index regressed half-way towards the breed average. It i s , therefore, h a l f as var i a b l e , but has exactly the same accuracy. ( 2 ) Predicting Future Daughters 1 Production. A l l e n points out that the best p r e d i c t i o n for a b u l l for continued use i n the herd where he was proved should be the simple average of his daughters, since his future daughters w i l l be l a r g e l y from the same group of dams and under very s i m i l a r en-vironment.. On the other hand, for predicting his future daughters from dams i n a d i f f e r e n t herd, less r e l i a b i l i t y might be expected. In t h i s instance, a standard such as Allen's expectancy formula should have much greater value, as i t applies the equal-parent p r i n c i p l e with a simple and workable allowance for regression and general differences of environment; provided the records are arrived at i n the same manner as i n the case of those from which the standard i s derived ( i . e . l i f e t i m e average, Dairy Herd Improvement Association, 305-day, mature, twice-a-day milking basis.) RELATIONSHIP OF PRODUCTION OF DAUGHTERS OF SIRES PROVED IN DAIRY HERB  IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATIONS TO PRODUCTION OF THEIR DAMS. Sires Av. Potential Formula for Av.Perform. Av.Perform. Performance Expected No.of of of Perform.of Breed Sires Daughters Dams. Daughters Mjlk Y i e l d , l b s . Ayrshire 214 Fst Percentage Ayrshire 214 Fat Yield l b s . Ayrshire 214 dam's) 7821 8103 6980 1752 / (0.749 x dam1s) 4.035 3.964 4.144 1.658 /(0.5998 x dam1s) 316.1 320.9 292.4 49 .2 / (0.8^17 x (3) Evaluating Pedigrees. ti Rice contends that the general custom i n drawing up pedigrees i s to include only the selected d i r e c t ancestors, and i n most instances only the most favourable data on these animals. There i s also i n addition, the b i o l o g i c a l fact that inheritance i s a halving and sampling process. Therefore even i f complete records of d i r e c t and c o l l a -t e r a l r e l a t i v e s are known, i t i s only by testing and indexing that i t may be revealed what sort of a sample h a l f of each parents'inheritance the animal received and how they "nicked." (4) The Sire Index i n the l i g h t of Modern Genetics. Lush presents a comprehensive discussion of the s i r e index problem, i n the l i g h t of modern genetics. The related genetic p r i n c i p l e s are reviewed:-1. Inheritance i s Mendel&an i n the broadest sense of the word. Inheritance i s car r i e d by u n i t s , c a l l e d genes which are present i n pairs and which maintain t h e i r i d e n t i t y , and l a t e r segregate out unchanged, and also can recombine. This i s subject to such modifications as linkage and sex linkage. 2. The Genes are not adaptively modified by th e i r environment. This statement denies the inheritance of acquired characters, and i s supported by many extensive and c a r e f u l l y conducted experiments, which have f a i l e d to detect the inheritance of adaptive modifications. 3 . Observed yie l d s are affected by environment> S t r i c t l y speaking, the question of whether a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s hereditary or environmental has no meaning, because the genes cannot possibly produce the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c without the proper environmentj and even i n the proper environment the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c cannot develop unless the necessary genes are present. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s the end r e s u l t of com-pl i c a t e d interactions of genes among themselves, and with t h e i r en-vironment. 4. The number of genes a f f e c t i n g each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s large. This i s c e r t a i n l y true for such c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s l i k e milk and f a t production, which are dependent on the combine d functioning of many organs and organ systems, and which might be raised or lowered by the a l t e r i n g of any one of many quite d i f f e r e n t p h y s i o l o g i c a l processes. The existence of a large number of genes, and the general absence of intensive inbreeding within breeds has several other consequences:-A. No animals have exactly the genes that the breeder desires, but some have more nearly the i d e a l than others do. This makes i t im-possible to improve a herd or breed i n a l l respects at once, simply by continually grading i t up to a perfect i n d i v i d u a l , since the l a t t e r does not e x i s t * B. E n t i r e l y homozygous animals are so e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y rare, that the search for those to be used continually as s i r e s i s doomed to but p a r t i a l success at the most, C. A high degree of homozygosity and the possession of a high proportion of the desired genes are uncorrelated, or nearly so. In-deed there i s some evidence to show, that on the whole heterozygosity rather than homozygosity i s correlated with i n d i v i d u a l excellence although not necessarily with breeding worth. 5. Gene frequency. The proportion which a desired gene constitutes of a l l the genes which occupy that locus i n the whole breed, i s changed at a rate which would be appreciable within a breeder's l i f e t i m e only by s e l e c t i o n . Namely, allowing those individuals possessing the desired genes to leave more offspring than those lacking the desired genes,. Mutation i s so rare an event, that the prac-t i c a l breeder need not take i t into account. Random s u r v i v a l or ex t i n c t i o n of genes, i s too weak a force to be important i n a p r a c t i c a l breeder's l i f e t i m e except i n extreme inbreeding systems. 6. Homozygosity of a breed. The homozygosity of a breed or group of animals i s changed to an appreciable extent, only as a r e s u l t of changes i n gene frequency; or much more powerfully, by some form of inbreeding or i t s opposite, the crossing of distant s t r a i n s . 7. Genes often exhibit dominance. This i s not universal, but seems to be the tendency at l e a s t among genes for d i s t i n c t differences i n colour and gross anatomy. There i s no inherent tendency for dominant genes or recessive genes to replace each other i n a population, except that undesired dominants are more exposed to the effects of selection than undesired recessives are. This has led to the general condition that undesired genes tend to be recessive and desired ones dominant, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f the t r a i t s which these genes a f f e c t have been the ob-j e c t of s e l e c t i o n for many generations. 8. Genes intera c t with each other. Many genetic factors require the presence and co-operation of others i n order to manifest t h e i r e f f e c t s . These are known i n genetics under various terms such as i n h i b i t i n g f a c t o r s , com-plementary factors, and e p i s t a t i c f a c t ors. They are most nearly summed up to the p r a c t i c a l animal breeder i n the term "nicking." Genetic application to s i r e indexes. Lush points out that a l l reasonably accurate s i r e indexes s t a r t with the average production of the daughters as a basis. The difference among the indexes l i e s i n the use and emphasis made of the difference between the production of daughters and dams. Differences i n herd environment aff e c t a l l i n -dexes since they enter into the daughter average, which i s the base of a l l indexes. Differences i n the average genetic merit of the cows to which the b u l l was mated, are neglected i n the daughter average, but are discounted i n the equal parent index. Errors due to random environment, and to the part played by chance i n inheritance are reduced by increasing the number of daughters tested. Errors due to dominance and to "nicking" are also thus reduced but not so e f f e c t i v e l y . Errors due to herd en-vironment and to differences i n the average merit of the dams are biased and do not trend toward zero as the number of daughters tested i s i n -creased. Lush concludes that no index i s absolutely correct // but e f f o r t should be made to keep possible errors at a minimum. Lush recommends the equal parent index as the soundest i n p r i n c i p l e , simple i n a pplication, freest from systematic error and having a range not very d i f f e r e n t from that of the actual records of cows. (5) The Number of Daughters necessary to prove a S i r e . Lush states that there i s no number below which i t can be said that the progeny t e s t i s inadequate, and above which i t can be said that the test i s c e r t a i n l y correct. Reliance i n the progeny test should increase as the number of daughters increases, but at an ever decreasing rat e . Let S represent the path c o e f f i c i e n t from the s i r e ' s genotype to the daughter's record, and l e t E represent the path c o e f f i c i e n t from the herd management or common environment to the daughter's record. Then, for what appears to be the most probable values of S and E, only a l i t t l e increase i n accuracy i s to be gained by including more than about f i v e to eight daughters i n the progeny tes t although of course i t i s desirable to base an estimate upon a l l that are available no matter how many that may be. I f a d e f i n i t e number must be adopted i n order formally to define what a "proved s i r e " i s , perhaps the number f i v e , adopted by the Bureau of Dairy Industry, i s as p r a c t i c a l as any other. 1 ja-In conclusion, Lush draws attention to the f a c t that occasionally cases w i l l be encountered, where a s i r e "proved" to be good i n one herd w i l l with equal certainty"prove" to be bad i n another herd. Some sires w i l l be "proved" to be poor ones merely because of chance v a r i a t i o n s , or because they were used i n a herd where the care and management given t h e i r daughters were not adequate, (6) The Use of F i r s t Records versus the Average of a l l records  i n Dam - Daughter comparisons, when proving s i r e s . Putnam et a l investigated the methods of report-ing dam-daughter comparisons for ca l c u l a t i n g s i r e indexes, A comparison was made of f i r s t dam-daughter 305 day mature equivalent records, and the averages of a l l records on a similar basis, i n reporting dam-daughter comparisons for c a l c u l a t i n g s i r e indexes, A comparison of these data f o r 169 Ayrshire s i r e s and 3388 dam-daughter pairs shows that there i s only a very small and i n s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the re s u l t s obtained by the two methods. The averages of dams* and daughters 1 records and the averages of s i r e indexes calculated by the use of both types of comparisons, show that the f i r s t records on a mature equivalent basis average s l i g h t l y higher than the averages, of a l l records on the same basis. It i s suggested, therefore, that much labour can be saved by ca l c u l a t i n g s i r e indexes from the use of f i r s t records only. (I V) THE CANADIAN SYSTEM OF RECORD OF PERFORMANCE IN DAIRY CATTLE. 1) Administration. The Canadian Record of Performance for pure-bred dairy c a t t l e i s directed from Ottawa, Ontario, by the Director, Production Service, Department of Agriculture. Only pure-bred dairy c a t t l e are e l i g i b l e for entry i n the Record of Performance tes t i n g scheme. The Record of Performance t e s t i n g scheme i s e n t i r e l y voluntary. I t i s up to the personal decision of the herd owner, as to whether or not to enter the herd. However, i t i s stated i n the rules and regulations governing R.O.P. that once a herd i s registered on R.O.P., a l l the cows i n the herd must be tested and a l l records, whether favourable or unfavourable, must be duly reported. I t must be noted that unfortunately t h i s provision has not been l i t e r a l l y enforced, as a r e s u l t of which a l l the records of a l l the cows i n a l l the herds registered on R.O.P. have not been r e -ported. A l l reported records are made available to the res-pective Breed Associations. These Breed Associations publish q u a l i f y i n g records i n t h e i r monthly p e r i o d i c a l s , but the non-qualifying records are not given any p u b l i c i t y . At the end of each year, the Production Service, Department of Agriculture, publishes a l i s t of a l l the qualifying records under the heading of each pure breed. Here again, the non qualifying records are not given any p u b l i c i t y . 2) The Present Method of reporting Canadian Record of Performance i n dairy c a t t l e . The annual report issued by The Production Service, Department of Agriculture, presents the qual i f y i n g records of the R.O.P. tested cows i n the following mannerJ-Each pure breed i s considered separately. The records are presented i n eight separate classes, namely, Mature (365 day ) Mature (305 day) 2 years " 2 years 11 3 years " 3 years " 4 years " 4 years H Thus age and length of testing period are the deciding f a c t o r s . The actual record i s presented along with a l l i e d data, i n the following manner (1) The R.O.P. number of the cow. This i s merely a permanent R.O.P. r e g i s t r a t i o n number a l l o t e d to each cow. (2) Name of cow and Registration Number. The names of the cows are l i s t e d a l p h a b e t i c a l l y , and the Herd Book Registration number supplied alongside. (3) Owner of cow and address of owner. (4) Age of cow. This i s given i n years and days as on the f i r s t day of t e s t i n g . (5) Date test commenced. (6) Date calved aft e r t e s t . (7) Number of times milked per day. In those instances where an animal was milked 2.X. three times or four times a day, the number of days on three or four times a day milking i s given. (8) Production Required. The production required to q u a l i f y for R.O.P. status i s given i n terms of pounds milk and pounds f a t . (9) Total Production. The actual production of the animal i s stated i n terms of pounds milk and pounds f a t . (10) Days i n milk. The number of days that the animal a c t u a l l y pro-duced milk while under test i s given. (11) Average percent f a t . This i s the average percentage of fat i n the t o t a l milk produced. N.B. No information i s given on the performance of s i r e s . The following i s the method used i n reporting the qualifying R.O.P. records i n the Canadian Ayrshire Review - monthly p e r i o d i c a l of the Ayrshire Breeders Association. (1) Name of cow and r e g i s t r a t i o n number. Here the names are not l i s t e d alphabetically,but are l i s t e d i n order of pounds fat produced and by age and l a c t a t i o n length (2) Owner of cow and address of owner. (3) Number of times milked per day. (4) Actual production i n terms of pounds milk and pounds f a t . (5) Percentage f a t . (6) Number of days i n milk. N.B. No r e a d i l y applicable information i s given on the performance of s i r e s . The name of the s i r e involved i s indicated 2,3 against each record. But i n order to use t h i s information much time would have to be spent by the breeder i n gathering these i n d i v i d u a l records and analysing them. 3) Canadian Ayrshire Record of Performance standards For Registration In order that a b u l l or cow may q u a l i f y for R.O.P. the following s p e c i f i c standards for r e g i s t r a t i o n must be f u l f i l l e d . B u l l s . -Admitted after having four progeny which q u a l i f y on the Record of Performance, each from a d i f f e r e n t dam. Cows. Admitted aft e r f u l f i l l i n g the following require-ments of production and breeding as supervised by the Live Stock Branch of the Department of Agriculture. Three Hundred and Five Day D i v i s i o n , otherwise  known as "Honour R o l l " . A l l cows admitted must equal or exceed both the records s p e c i f i e d below, and must drop a normal c a l f within 400 days af t e r the date of calving at the beginning of the testing period. Lbs. Milk Lbs. Butter Fat Two-year-old,-class 5,500 220 Three-year-old class 6,500 260 Four-year-old class 7,500 300 Mature class 8,500 340 Milk Record I f the test be commenced the day the animal i s two years old or previous to that day, she must produce within 305 con-secutive days from that date 5>500 pounds of milk. For each day the animal i s over two years old at the beginning of her year's test the amount of milk she w i l l be required to produce i n the year w i l l be determined by adding 2.74 pounds for each such day to the 5»500 pounds required v/hen i n the two-year-old c l a s s . This r a t i o i s applicable u n t i l the animal i s f i v e years o l d , when the required amount w i l l have reached 8,500 pounds, which w i l l be the minimum amount of milk required of a l l cows f i v e years old and over. Butter Fat Record The amount of butter fat w i l l be determined i n a l l classes on a four per cent basis. Three Hundred and Sixty-Five Day D i v i s i o n . A l l cows admitted must equal or exceed both the records s p e c i f i e d : -Lbs. Milk . Lbs.Butter Fat Two-year-old class 7,000 280 Three-year-old class 8,000 320 Four-year-old class 9,000 360 Mature Class 10,000 400 Milk Record. I f the test be commenced the day the animal i s two years old or previous to that day, she must produce within 365 consecutive days from that date, 7,000 poifmds of milk. For each day the animal i s over two years old at the beginning of her year's t e s t , the amount of milk she w i l l be required to produce i n the year w i l l be determined by adding 2.74 pounds f o r each such day to the 7,000 pounds required when i n the two-year old c l a s s . This r a t i o i s applicable u n t i l the animal i s f i v e years o l d , when the required amount w i l l have reached 10,000 pounds, which w i l l be the minimum amount of milk r e -quired of a l l cows f i v e years old and over Butter Fat Record. , « The amount of butter f a t w i l l be determined i n a l l classes on a four p e r cent basis. 4-) Rules and Regulations governing Record of Performance Testing. Although t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s not d i r e c t l y con-cerned with t h i s phase of R.O.P. work, i t i s nevertheless worthwhile to review some of the main features of the rules governing R.O.P. t e s t i n g . The following are the rules and regulations governing R.O.P. t e s t i n g . Scope of Tests. A l l tests are held for a period not exceeding 365 consecutive days. No milk from a second freshening i s considered i n a t e s t . E l i g i b i l i t y of Animals. 1. A l l animals entered for the test must be registered i n the Canadian Herd Book for the breed to which they belong. 2. Every cow under te s t must have calved at l e a s t s i x days before the inspector takes samples of her milk. 3» Every owner making ap p l i c a t i o n for entry of a cow, must agree to enter i n the test a l l normal untested milking pure-bred cows i n his herd, which freshen during the period that such cow i s under t e s t * The acceptance of an ap p l i c a t i o n for the entry of a cow w i l l not bind the Department to continue the . supervision of a test i n the event of a change of ownership, unless the new owner complies with the above requirement. 4. The Department undertakes the testing of cows only on the premises on which there are at least three pure-bred cows of breeding age regula r l y kept. 5. Each breeder entering cows i n the Record of Performance i s charged a herd fee of f i v e d o l l a r s , which i s due each year, with the commencement of the f i r s t record i n the herd aft e r the f i r s t day i n May. Method of Testing. The percent of butter f a t i s determined by the Babcock t e s t . Duties of Owner. The owner i s responsible for making application for the entry of cows within t h i r t y days of calving. The owner i s also required to weigh. or cause to be weighed, each milking and to record same on a form furnished f o r the purpose and to keep th i s form posted i n a conspicuous place i n the dairy barn. At the end of each month a report on forms furnished for the purpose stating a record of the weights of each milking with the t o t a l y i e l d of milk from each cow for the month, must be sent i n to the Record of Performance headquarters at Ottawa. Duties of Inspector. An inspector i s employed by the Dominion Government to v i s i t dairy barns on t e s t , as often as possible during the year. These v i s i t s are unannounced. Each v i s i t l a s t s at least two days i f necessary, and during t h i s time the inspector checks on the weights of milk from each cow, and also performs butterfat tests on a composite milk sample from each cow. Other duties of the inspector include, checking on accuracy of scale used by farmer for milk weighings, taking a copy of the owner's milk record for the two days immediately preceding the v i s i t , and taking note of any i l l n e s s among the cows on t e s t . The inspector i s required to send i n a report on each v i s i t to a farm, to the Record of Performance Headquarters, at Ottawa. 5) C r i t i c i s m of the present Canadian System of Record of Performance i n Dairy C a t t l e . 7 Joubert offers much constructive c r i t i c i s m of the present method of reporting records of performance i n Canada. At present 2.7 an a r b i t r a r y scale for the "required production i n the various age classes i s used, and has been used for the past t h i r t y years. Cows which do not q u a l i f y for t h i s a r b i t r a r y l e v e l do not have t h e i r pro-duction record published, but instead are kept unused at Ottawa.This i s not e n t i r e l y f a i r and correct, and constitutes hiding of l e s s desirable r e s u l t s . In the U.S.Ayrshire Breede'rs1 Association, a l l records high and low are published and used i n s t a t i s t i c a l analyses. In comparing U.S.Ayrshire breed averages with Canadian Ayrshire R.O.P. a r b i t r a r y requirements, for age groups ex-tending from 2 years to 15 years, a clear discrepancy i s seen i n the trend of the a r b i t r a r y figures favouring the younger cows and d i s -criminating against the older cows. This v a r i a t i o n extends from 3*7% to 23.9#. jTeubert claims that many Ayrshire Breeders i n Canada are against pu b l i c a t i o n of the true breed average, on the grounds that, maybe, the figures would not come out as high as they wish. This attitude approaches one of s e l f deception, and must merely serve a f a l s e sense of security and hinda* progress. Uoubert draws attention to tie f a c t that U.S. Ayrshire s t a t i s t i c s show that the laws of nature allow the same 15 per ee] cent difference between a 305 and a 365 day l a c t a t i o n period for any age group; while the a r b i t r a r y Canadian figures require a difference i n milk of 1,500 pounds, which represents a difference of from 21 per cent to 15 per cent according to age, 7 'Jflubert concludes that the present Canadian R.O.P. system has operated very well to accumulate a mass of separate f a c t s , but that i t i s far from having given r e s u l t s i n supplying Information of v i t a l importance. McKinnon points out that the present method of reporting R.O.P. records does not allow accurate comparisons to be made between records. This necessitates finding some basis which w i l l allow comparisons to be made f u l l y and accurately. To meet t h i s requirement, McKinnon advocates expressing Canadian E.O.P. records on a mature equivalent 365 day basis. McKinnon states that i n the United States the Ayrshire Breeders* Association have the following recognized classes of records (A.R.) Advanced Registry Record (R.H.) R o l l of Honor Record (R.H.L.) R o l l of Honor Record (which does not qu a l i f y for a c e r t i f i c a t e ) (H.T.) Herd Test Record (M.H.T.) Meritorious Herd Test Record. (H.T.L.) The F i r s t C a l f Lactation Record of Heifers. (D.H.I.) Dairy Herd Improvement Association Records. In the United States the Ayrshire Breeders' Association calculate t h e i r mature equivalent records to a 305 day basis, because i t suits t h e i r s p e c i a l needs.. On these grounds,McKinnon suggests that Canadian mature equivalent records should be calculated, to a 365 day basis, e s p e c i a l l y since the requirements of a mature cow on a 365 day basis works out at exactly 10,000 pounds of milk and 400 n pounds of f a t . McKinnon i s well pleased with the present a r b i t r a r y requirements, for the d i f f e r e n t age, groups, set by the Canadian Ayrshire Breeders Association. I t i s claime d th£ these requirements have stood the test for eighteen years, and are s t i l l good. McKinnon supports t h i s view by stating that i n 1946 the spread between t he average milk production i n each class and the average of a l l classes, was only 4.26 per cent i n the class with the greatest spread. The spread, between the average f a t production i n each class and the average of a l l classes, was only 5»43 per cent i n the class with the greatest spread. McKinnon concludes that the R.O.P. requirements have been unchanged for eighteen years. They should remain as they are, and Canadian Ayrshire Breeders should have great confidence i n them. A M.E. 365 day index for Canadian R.O.P. s i r e s . McKinnon takes the view that i t i s possible u*.and highly desirable to work out a mature equivalent index for every R.O.P. b u l l i n Canada. In the c a l c u l a t i o n of these indexes, the average of the one best record from each of a l l of the q u a l i f i e d daughters, would be used. McKinnon holds strongly to the idea that a cow make s i t s best record when i t i s at i t s peak of good health and when i t has the best management conditions with the best food provided. Under such conditions a cow r e f l e c t s her inheritance and therefore her inheritance i s i n d i -cated i n her best record. I t i s suggested on these grounds by is McKinnon, that low records are usually the r e s u l t of unfavourable en-vironment, and should not therefore figure i n any study which has for i t s aim the c a l c u l a t i o n of an "index" of milk and f a t inheritance* McKinnon admits that there i s the occasional b u l l whose daughters are consistently low producers due to poor inheritance5 but advises that i n his experience these animals, have been e s p e c i a l l y few and far between. A S McKinnon concludes that i t i s possible to obtain a good workable index for a proven Canadian Ayrshire b u l l , by using the one best record from each of a l l of the q u a l i f i e d daughters. Because each index i s based on the one best record from each of a l l of the q u a l i f i e d daughters, each index i s based on the inheritance factor to .the maximum possible. Be-cause unqualifying or low records are excluded, factors which eause poor records, and which have nothing to do with inheritance are excluded. 6) S u i t a b i l i t y of high records as contrasted with unselected records  and with average records as a basis for selecting cows. Berry studied the s u i t a b i l i t y of high records as contrasted with unselected records and with average records as a basis for selecting cows. The high c o r r e l a t i o n between a cow's highest record (or her lowest) and the average of the other records from which t h i s one was selected r e s u l t s l a r g e l y from the s t a t i s t i c a l e f f e c ts of t h i s 30 s e l e c t i o n i t s e l f . This high c o r r e l a t i o n does not indicate s u p e r i o r i t y of the selected record for predicting future records or breeding value. When the highest record i s correlated with other records from which i t was not selected, the res u l t i n g c o e f f i c i e n t (provided a l l cows have the same number of records) indicates that the high record i s nearly as r e l i a b l e as an unselected record, but less r e l i a b l e than the average of a l l unselected records. Differences i n number of completed records, how-ever i s of so much p r a c t i c a l importance i n making selected records un-f a i r that the use of the highest record, as an i n d i c a t i o n of a cow's l i f e t i m e producting a b i l i t y , cannot be recommended. In conclusion, Berry states that averages appear to be more dependable than either selected or unselected single records for evaluating differences between cows, 7) R e l i a b i l i t y of Averages of Different numbers of l a c t a t i o n records for comparing dairy cows. 3 Berry studied the r e l i a b i l i t y of averagesof d i f f e r -ent numbers of l a c t a t i o n records for comparing dairy cows, and reported as follows:-Cows can be f a i r l y compared i f they have a d i f f e r e n t number of records, by use of the following p r e d i c t i o n qquations:-1. Real producing a b i l i t y (W) W • herd average / n w 2 v ^ T r T O to X cows average minus herd 1 / (n - l ) r average 2. Transmitting a b i l i t y or breeding value (B) B = herd average / 2 n g X cows average minus 1 / (n - l ) r herd average» In these equations, n i s the number of records i n the cow's average, r i s the average intra-herd r e p e a t a b i l i t y of records of the same cow (usually of the order of 0.3 to 0.5) g i s the average intra-herd corre-l a t i o n , between dam and daughter records (probably not far from 0.1 generally) and w2, which i s that part of r l e f t a f t e r the effects of proximity are removed i s believed to have a value of approximately 0,03 to 0.09 less than r . Berry concluded that the major increase i n r e l i a -b i l i t y occurs when a second record i s added to the f i r s t . Addition of a t h i r d record adds considerably to the r e l i a b i l i t y of the estimate. Records beyond the t h i r d contribute more information, but so l i t t l e that they are hardly worthwhile waiting for before estimating the worth of the animal. 8) C r i t i c i s m , by the author, of the present method of reporting Record of Performance i n Canada. The method of reporting Canadian Record of Per-formance records has been governed by a s t a t i c p o l i c y . Such a p o l i c y cannot serve the best interests of dairy breeders,in a changing set of conditions i n dairy husbandry. A dynamic p o l i c y i s required. The author desires to l e v e l the following s p e c i f i c c r i t i c i s m against the present method of reporting Canadian R.O.P. recordsJ-1. The non-qualifying records should receive equal consideration and equal p u b l i c i t y as the qualifying records. 2. The a r b i t r a r y standards set for qualifying on Record of Perform-ance might be e n t i r e l y discarded and each animal assessed on i t s own true i n d i v i d u a l merit. 3. Records should be expressed i n such a form that they may be d i r e c t l y compared one with the other, even i f they belong to di f f e r e n t age and or lactation-length groups, and come from widely separated parts of the country. The present system does not allow d i r e c t comparison between animals of d i f f e r e n t age groups. 4.At present the R.O.P. reports do not publish any r e a d i l y a p p l i c -32--able i n f or nation on s i r e s , '-^ 'his is deplorable. Equal or more attention should be given t o reporting s i r e performance, as i s given to dam performance. 5. IcKinnon's idea of calculating Canadian sire indexes on a M.E. 365 day basis is sound i n p r i n c i p l e . However, i n view of Berry's work, i t does not seem ad-visable to use only the best records of dams and daughters for calculating s i r e indexes. 3*3 7 . THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF RECORD OF PERFORMANCE IN DAIRY CATTLE l) The American System of Reoord of Performance i n Dairy C a t t l e • Conklin mentions the following schemes as constituting the national dairy testing program i n iiie United States:.- Advanced Registry, Herd Test Plan, Dairy H Qrd Improvement, and Owner Sampler Plan. The American Dairy Science Association attempts to co-ordinate t h i s work, but i t has no pavers -to require rule enforcement by i t s members. Those administering the testing programs may or may not be members of the A.D.S.A. Furthermore, there is a wide variation i n the extent to which Dairy Herd Improvement Associations are self-governing bodies, and broad d i f f e r -ences as to the extent to which they write t h e i r own i n d i v i d u a l p o l i c i e s . Thus the present degree of uniformity i n supervision, i s a tribute -to the i n t e l l i g e n c e and s p i r i t of co-operation of -those administering the national testing program i n the United States. The American Ayrshire Breeders Association. The American Ayrshire Breeders Association i s located at Brandon, Vermont. The o f f i c e of this Association i s equipped with the most modern labour saving machines, which are worth while mentioning since they would serve as an asset to any Breed Association. A complete set of o f f i c e equipment has been leased from the International Business Machines Company. These now enable the s t a f f to process records pertaining to the Herd Test, Progeny Studies, Type Classification,Auction Sales, averages, and herd production averages. Standard punch cards on which a l l records are maintained, are the basis for keeping records. After the cards are punched, the records on them may be printed d i r e c t l y from the cards without resorting to the use of a typewriter. Columns may be added and serve as permanent records. Data on cards such as cow's records may be printed, sorted, or duplicated at high speed. 3*t For the Association f i l e s the o r i g i n a l l a c t a t i o n record card i s produced. Four sets of each l a c t a t i o n card are produced. Three of these sets are made automatically by one duplicating machine and one set of these cards i s f i l e d according to the r e g i s t r a t i o n number of the animal. In another f i l e a l l of the daughters of a s i r e are f i l e d together, while i n s t i l l another f i l e a l l of the daughters of each dam are f i l e d together. A fourth set of these cards i s i n the Dairy Department of the University of West V i r g i n i a , where the data i s used i n a co-operative research program with that i n s t i t u t i o n . 2) P o l i c y of the National Testing Program of the United States. M Conklin points out that the p o l i c y of the National Testing Program has not been s t a t i c . Rules: have been revised as objectives have changed. Early objectives of Advanced Registry i n the United States were two-fold:-1 . Advertising advantages. 2. Aid i n the selection of breeding stock. Recent pol i c y places emphasis on the following points 1 . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and improvement of genetic material i n breeding stock. Conklin advises that now a days the greatest service should come from a broader use of dependable s i r e s , accompanied by a steady reduction i n the use of young sires of unknown pedigree value. 2 . Improvement of the economic management of the respective herds that are enrolled. This involves constant consideration of the relationship of cost of grain to price of milk. Maximum production has been and s t i l l i s regarded by the majority as the ideal aim. Some think that economy of production deserves equal attention. Conklin advises that i t should be expected of the testing program to help economically raise the production of the so c a l l e d "below average" herds. Feed records should also be kept by every dairyman, and these would provide a wealth of information for the common benefit of a l l . Conklin, speaking i n his capacity as Secretary of the American  Ayrshire Breeders Association, expresses the following points of view. 1. Low records and incojpplete records are of f i r s t importance. Without considering records of performance of below average cows, there can be no true appraisal of the breeding value of t h e i r s i r e s , 2. I t is of paramount importance to develop a system where quick and f u l l information on young sires can be readily obtained. A system should be developed which gives a progeny report within s i x t y to ninety days of the date that a sire's f i f t h or tenth daughter completes her f i r s t record, and promptly thereafter as additional groups of daughters are tested. 3 . A system is required of issuing preliminary studies on sires with f i v e or more daughters i n milk, provided each of them has completed at least three months l a c t a t i o n . This should be s t r i c t l y designated a pre-liminary report, and would involve the use of factors i n estimating i n -complete records to a 3^5 day basis. U. Is i t necessary to have butterfat tests throughout the l a c t a t i n g l i f e of a cow ? I t i s necessary for cows on Advanced Registry; but i n cases where the data is required merely for progeny reports, i s i t not s u f f i c -ient to secure tests during the f i r s t few lactations and thereafter apply correction factors for the normal decline on aging. 5. Rules shouM be relaxed so as to make i t optional as to whether cows producing 10 or 12 pounds of milk per day be tested for butterfat. The average for the previous months or lac t a t i o n tests could be used. 3) The method used by the American Ayrshire Breeders' Association to report performance of dairy c a t t l e . u Conklin states that the American Ayrshire Breeders' Association took the i n i t i a l step, several years ago, in standardizing t h e i r records of 36 production on a 3^5 "days, twice-a-day milking, mature equivalent basis (305 day 2 X M.E. basis) . The o f f i c e r s of ths A.A.B.A. are of the opinion that i t is of f i r s t importance to a breed to include a l l records i n a l l s i r e and dam studies, regardless of size of record. Thus in proving their sires a l l records are used regardless of how low they may be. The Ayrshire Digest, which i s the monthly p e r i o d i c a l , issued by the American Ayrshire Breeders Association uses the following method of reporting record of performance i n dairy c a t t l e . Pe rf or mane e of cows: -1 . Name of cow and r e g i s t r a t i o n number. 2. Name of s i r e and regis t r a t i o n number. 3 . Name of owner and farm. U. Age of cow. 5. Number of days i f any on 3 X milking. 6. Actual production i n terms of pounds milk, pounds f a t and percentage f a t . 7. Mature equivalent i n terms of pounds milk and pounds f a t . 8. Mature equivalent 1$ f a t corrected milk. 9 . The Mature equivalent i s corrected to a 3^5 day basis, and serves for the ranking of cows. Each month the Ayrshire Digest gives the records, i n the above prescribed manner, of the cows i n the hards which averaged 25 pounds butterfat or over, inclusive of dry cows. The annual report of the Ayrshire Breeders Association gives many comprehensive summeries of the performance of cows during the past year. For example:-1 . Leading herd test record herds completed in year - arranged by classes according to size of herd, 2. Leading meritorious herd t e s t records f o r year - arranged by classes according to age. *7 3» Leading meritorious producers for a l l time. Performance of s i r e s : -From time to time as a service to the Ayrshire breed, the Ayrshire Digest publishes a l i s t of proved sires with f i v e or more tested daughters that have produced or are estimated to produce an average of not less than 8,000 pounds milk and jlfi pounds f a t , i n 305 days on a 2 X milking mature equivalent basis. The following method of reporting t h i s data i s used:-1 . Name of s i r e s , l i s t e d alphabetically with r e g i s t r a t i o n number; also s i r e and dam of eqch s i r e with th e i r respective r e g i s t r a t i o n numbers, 2. Date of birth of s i r e * 3. Name and address of la s t owner. U. Number of daughters tested. 5» Number of complete records. 6. Average production of daughters i n terras of pounds milk and pounds fa t , on a mature equivalent, 2 X a day, 3^5 day basis. 7. Average production of dams i n terms of pounds milk and pounds f a t , on a mature equivalent, 2 X a day, 3^5 day basis. I4) C r i t i c i s m by the author, of the present method of reporting Record of  Performance of Ayrshires i n the United States. The following features of the U.S.Ayrshire Breeders' Association are most conmendable,-1 . The organization has a forward looking and dynamic p o l i c y . 2. The most modern o f f i c e , equipment i s i n use, 3 . There is research co-operation with the University of West V i r g i n i a . .'4. A l l records, regardless of size are used i n computing s t a t i s t i c s on Ayrshir e c a t t l e , 3 « 5. The author agrees with the views expressed by Conklin, that i t would be of great advantage to develop a system, whereby a progeny report is given on a s i r e , within s i x t y to ninety days of the date that a sires f i f t h daughter completes her f i r s t record. Also a method of making early and preliminary reports on young sires would be veiry h e l p f u l . The present method of expressing records for comparative purposes is on a 3^5 M,E, 2 X basis. This involves the use of conversion factors. I t would be meritorious to f i n d some new system, whereby the pro-duction of cows could be compard, without the use of conversion factors. V"T7 A NEW SYSTEM OF REPORTING RECORD OF PERFORMANCE IN CANADIAN AYSHTRE CATTLE It has been pointed out that the present method of report-ing Ayrshire records in Canada does not allow direct comparisons to be made between cows of different ages and with different lactation periods. It is in the interest of progress for the Ayrshire breed, that some suitable yardstick be found which can be used to measure Ayrshire production on a basis that will enable comparisons between cows of different age-lactation classes. It must be remembered that in the United States the Ayrshire Breed Association has used a Mature Equivalent Basis for making comparisons between cows, and for calculating sire indexes. This system has been used successfully for a number of years, and has merit. However, i t must be pointed out that Mature Equivalence expresses, by use of mathematical con-version factors, in terms of milk and fat, the forecast production of a cow at maturity. But this is open to criticism since the quantity of milk and fat stated was not actually produced, and the conversion factors are only absolutely accurate for that particular group of data from which they were calculated. 7 feiabert points out that for over thirty years an arbitrary scale of production has been used as the only criterion of performance. The annual statistics of the Ayrshire breed in Canada are calculated from the records which qualify above this arbitrary scale. No non-qualifying records are used in determining the breed average. These annual statistics are published and serve to advertise the Ayrshire breed, and are declared to represent the official production of a l l Canadian Ayrshire cattle tested in the Record of Performance for that year. Such statements are not true and can only mislead the public. The time has arrived when the Ayrshire breeders, and indeed breeders of other purebred cattle in Canada, must be made to realise that i t will be to their ultimate advantage to use and publish true figures with respect to breed averages. J&ubert has suggested the development of a modified system of reporting Canadian Ayrshire Records of Performance. This modified system is designed to overcome the inadequacies of the present method, and also to lay claim to certain advantages that i t may well have over the present system of mature equivalence used in the United States. 7 Joubert suggests the following as the salient features of the modified method: 1. A l l records, regardless of size, will be used to calculate a true breed average. 2. Each individual production will be expressed as a percentage of the breed average. For example, instead of saying Bossie gave 8,980 pounds milk in 305 days at 5 years, and 9180 pounds milk (Mature Equivalent) under the modified system, i t would be said Bossie gave 8,980 pounds milk, 104 percent at 5 years. In similar manner i t may be said that the daughters of a bull averaged 105 percent or 110 percent, as the case may be. i DETAILS OF THE MEW PERCENTAGE SYSTEM. 7 Accruing from the suggestions of Jaubert, the author has developed the following details for a modified method of reporting Canadian Ayrshire Records of Performance: 1. The R.O.P. testing plan must remain a voluntary plan. of However, a l l herds entered on R.O.P., a l l individual cows in each herd must be tested and a l l records, regardless of whether they are completed or not, must be reported to R.O.P. headquarters. 2. In computing any age-lactation period class average, a l l records regardless of size must be used. Special consideration will have to be given to incomplete records. This will be dealt with later. 3. Individual records shall be expressed on a percent-age basis. In order to do this, separate age-lactation period classes will be established. The average production for each age-lactation period class is established for a five-year period. These five-year class averages will change from year to year. Thus a five-year moving average will be established. The moving average is calculated by adding in the production totals for the most recent year, and subtracting the production totals for the earliest year (of the five years involved) from the respective five-year totals. yYl7 EXPERIMENTAL WORK 1. OBJECTIVE; The following are the main objectives of the experi-mental work: 1. To establish five-year age-lactation period class averages for the periods 1941 to 1945 inclusive, and 1942 to 1946 inclusive. 2. To calculate the sire indexes of three sires of the Ayrshire herd at University of British Columbia, using records expressed on a percentage basis. 2. PROCEDURE: ESTABLISHMENT OF FIVE-YEAR AVERAGES The establishment of a proper and true breed age-lactation period class average depends on the averaging of a l l records, including both qualifiers and non-qualifiers. More than one attempt was made to obtain the non-qualifying records of Ayrshire R.O.P. tested cows f o r the period 1941 to 1946 in c l u s i v e , from the Ayrshire Breeders Association i n Ottawa. How-ever, a favourable response was not forthcoming from that organization. The Secretary of the Association discussed the issue with the Executive Committee and also with the Breed Improvement Advisory Committee, and the following reasons were given f o r deciding to withhold the requested information: 1. The st a f f of the Association had been busy, on an overtime basis, i n preparing data f o r projected approved Sire and Dam Plans. Any release of the non-qualifying records would have seriously i n t e r r u p t e d , the o f f i c e routine. 2. The concensus of opinion among the members of these committees was that at present no particulars of non-qualifying records should be made available f o r publication. The basis f o r this f e e l i n g was that the Association had no authority to publish i n any form the non-qualifying records. 3. The Secretary also intimated that there were other angles involved, namely, that consideration of the non-qualifying records would not put the Ayrshire records i n very good l i g h t , especially since none of the other Associations take into consideration such non-qualifying records. Also the Association intends to i n s t i t u t e an Ayrshire R.O.P. Herd Test Plan, and at that time i t would be convenient to commence giving more attention to non-qualifying records. The effect of not being able to obtain the non-qualifying records, on the projected work had to be immediately considered. I t was decided that although i t was desirable and b e n e f i c i a l to have the non-qualifying records, nevertheless i t d i d not i n any way detract from the main theme of the work to proceed without them. #3 The mere fact that these records were not made avail-able to a University Graduate for research work designed for the benefit of the Ayrshire breed, suggests that the Ayrshire Breed Association does not have a sense of confidence, and pleasure in the disclosure of a l l records to public view. The effect of the absence of the non-qualifying records from the calculations will be twofold: (1) The age-lactation period class averages will be higher than they should be. (2.). The percentage of performance of individual animals will be lower than they really are. Immediately i t will be asked: How much higher and lower, as the case may be, will these figures be? Will they be so much higher, or lower, as to lend unrealistic proportions to the results? It cannot be known how much these figures will be changed. However, i t is reasonable to state that the five-year averages will only be slightly higher than the true averages would be, in view of the fact that there are always more qualifying cows than non-qualifying cows, and many of the non-qualifying will be just below the arbitrary level of production. 194-1 J r . 2 (305 days) J r . 2 (365 days) Sr. 2 (305 days) Sr. 2 (365 days) No.Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs.) Tot, Unc. Cor. Avgs. 233 1684566 1664334 7230 7143 87 69890 69071 feat 161 ? 7 1427372 1401541 8866 8705 161 5876 5 57768 feat 316 > > 2462844 2435172 7794 7706 86 102739 101591 fea 325 4.1 321 4.1 4 177 : b 7 7 L645550 L623027 9297 9170 127 68182 67277 feat 385 4ol4 380 4J.5 5 Unc. Cor. 300 4.4 296 4.1 4 365 4.1! 359 4 . i i 6 194-2 Tot, Unc. Cor. Unc. Cor. 248 1804746 1792233 7277 7227 50 74783 74251 feat 302 4.14 299 4.14 3 171 1505887 1495054 8806 8743 63 62408 61966 feat 365 4.14 362 4.14 3 254 1 L954230 L937673 7694 7629 65 81539 80867 feat 321 4.17 318 4.17 3 236 2180193 2157557 9238 9142 96 90526 89603 feat • 384 4 .15 380 4 .15 4 1943 Tot, Unc. Cor. Avgs. 261 1894187 1888666 7257 7236 2o 78770 78539 JBfat-182 1637943 1627200 9000 8941 59 S7211 S6769 • feat 257 : 1 L989195 L978503 7740 7698 42 81967 81522 feat 189 1765122 L752293 ?339 9271 68 72690 72143 feat Unc. Cor. 302 4.16 301 4.16 1 369 4.10 367 4.10 2 319 4 a 12 317 4.12 2 ^ 38£ 4.12! 382 4.12! 3 i 1944 Tot, Unc0 Cor. Avgs,, 232 1706197 1700747 7354 7331 23 71473 71245 feat 178 1604146 1598872 9012 8982 30 37138 S6925 feat 347 ; *• r i >682466 2676191 730 '712 18 L12042 111779 feat 181 > < < L666887 L659990 ?209 ?171 1 38 39 548 39269 feat Unc. Cor. 308 4.19 307 4.19 1 M7 4.18 *76 4.19 1 323 4 . l 8 322 4.18 1 *84 4.17 383 4.17 1 1 194* Tot, Unc. Cor. Avgs,, 237 1720325 1718610 7259 7252 7 71744 71671 feat 167 1494387 1 1488543 < 8948 8913 35 J1703 >1455 • feat 302 'c r 365106 !3 51940 7831 7788 43 ?8139 27605 ttat 241 ; !286710 < 2274511 < 9488 9438 ; 50 H637 J4131 <fat i93 4„14 m 4.14 2 Unc. Cor. 303 4.17 302 4.17 £ 369 4.12 368 4.13 1 32* 4 .15 323 4 .15 2 J r . 2 (305 days) 194-6 No.Cows Silk (lbs.) Fat (lbs J r . 2 (365 days) uows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs Sr. 2 (305 days) Cows Silk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Sr. 2 G65 days), Cows i l k (lbs)Fat (lbs.) Unc. Cor. Unc. Cor. 274 2016664 2008216 7360 7329 31 83117 82760 %fat 303 4.12 302 4.1S 1 197 1768623 1765288 8978 8961 17 73046 72915 Uat 370 4.13 370 4.13 350 k 2776671 2771846 7933 7919 14 114465 114271 292 327 4.13 326 4 .1 1 2775199 2765189 9504 9470 34 113439 113026 gfat 388 4.09 387 4.08 1 194-1 J r . 3L3Q.5 davsV J r . 3 (361 days) Sr. 3 r 3 0 T d a v s l Sr. 3 (36^ Aavs) No.Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows 'Milk (lbs.') Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs.) Tot f f Unc, Cor, Aves, 150 1206875 1191511 8046 7943 103 49867 49234 gfat 332 4.1: 328 4.1: 4 89 878251 863669 9867 9704 163 3593 5 35356 .{If at 167 1493419 1478210 8942 8852 90 61587 60971 j&fat 80 842055 827130 10526 10339 187 34621 34031 fofat Unc, Cor, 404 4.09 397 4.09 7 369 365 4-. 12 4 . 433 42| 4.11 1942 Tot. Unc. Cor. Aves. 150 1246460 1232694 8310 8218 92 51411 50860 fat 343 4.12 339 4.1: 4 89 889335 874135 9993 9822 171 36475 36162 fofat 158 1401253 1397167 8869 8843 26 57800 57635 %fat 78 •822270 818105 10542 10489 53 33652 33478 jfcfat ' Unco Cor. 410 4.10 406 4.14 4 366 4.12 365 4.1: 1 431 4.09 429 4.09 2 194-3 Tot. Unco Cor. Unc. Cor. 174 1428102 1420765 8207 8165 42 58720' 58414 jGfat 337 4.13 336 4.13 1 88 893377 893290 10152 10151 1 36230 36227 tot 412 4.06 412 4.06 0 199 1741728 1725778 8752 8672 80 71493 70833 JKfat 359 4.10 356 4.1C 3 92 946235 937013 10285 10185 100 39423 39037 jfrat 429 4.37 424 4.17 5 1944 Tot, Unc. Cor. Aves. 172 1409131 1404759 8193 8167 26 58339 58153. 339 4.1^ 338 4.1/ 1 109 IO84499 1076390 9950 9875 75 45163 44827 %fat 169 1461718 1458255 8649 8629 20 60473 60326 %fat 114 1161354-1159576 IOI87 10172 15 48000 47931 jgfat Unc, Cor. 414 4.16 411 4.16 3 358 4.14 357 4.14 1 421 4.33 420 4.33 1 194^ Tot f l Unc, Cor. A Y S * Unc, Cor, 150 1237964 1230569 8253 8204 49 514-32 51113 JGfat 343 4.11 341 4.11 2 101 1007693 1001014 9977 9911 66 42095 41809 %fat 417 4.18 414 4.18 186 1615668 ' 1606427 8686 8636 50 66558 66178 JKfat 358 4.12 356 4.12 2 93 972228 962775 10454 10352 102 40446 40042 fofat 43^ 4.36 431 4.16 4 1946 J r . 3 (305 days) J r . 3 (365 days) Sr. 3 (305 days) Sr. 3 n6«> davs) No.Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs.) —rrt j — . Tot, Unc, Cor, Unc, Cor, 174 1428018 1421927 8207 8172 35 58611 5839 5 JKfat 337 4.1C 336 4.1] 1 104 • 1043132 1027893 10030 9883 147 43044 42434 JBfat 414 4 .1: 408 4.1: 6 227 2052119 2037080 9040 8974 66 84733 84110 J&fat 373 4.i; 371 4.i; 2 128 1 \ 1321985 1315261 10328 10275 53 54263 53972 #fat 424 4.30 422 4 0]0 2 1941 J r . 4 (305 days) J r . 4 (305 days) Sr. 4 (305 days) Sr. 4 (365 days) No.Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs.) Tot, Unc Cor Unc Cor , 102 927345 914829 9092 8969 123 38272 17775 JKfat 375 4.i; 370 4.1, 5 67 > i 726250 718565 10840 10725 115 30342 30022 gfat 453 4.1c 448 4.15 5 93 1 > 913404 909962 9822 9785 37 37497 37357 JKfat 403 4.K 402 4.1: 1 49 ) 567938 554945 11591 11325 266 23548 23024 #fat 480 4015 470 4.15 11 1942 Tot. Unc Cor A Y S * Unc, Cor, 105 • 945582 937453 9006 8928 78 38670 38344 fffat 368 4.0< v365 4.o< 3 77 ) ) 851868 847167 11063 11002 61 35305 35105 #fat 459 4.14 456 4.14 3 96 938054 931723 9771 9705 66 38351 38098 399 4.0< 397 4.01 2 59 ) ) 710959 701680 12050 11893 157 §8824 28437 JBfat 489 4.05 482 4.05 7 1943 Tot. Unc, Cor, Avg, Unc, Cor, 87 • 793249 788977 9118 9069 49 32452 32281 £fat 373 4.0^ 371 4.0« 2 53 > > 586505 584196 11066 11023 43 23964 23870 JKfat 452 4.0? 450 4.0? 2 102 • 984364 975822 9651 9567 84 40100 39750 jfoat 393 4.0^ 190 4.0: . 3 54 1 1 642942 636716 11906 11791 115 26375 26123 Jfcfat 488 4.30 484 4.10 4 1944 Tot. Unc, Cor, Ayg t Unc, Cor, 127 1147396 1141306 9035 8987 48 47260 47011 $fat 372 4.12 370 4.12 2 53 > > 584001 581276 11019 10967 52 24039 23939 JKfat 454 4.12 452 4.12 2 106 1026576 1024114 9685 9661 24 42432 42332 • jlfat 4OO 4 .1: 399 4 , i : 1 60 692245 683444 11537 11391 146 28813 28437 gfat 480 4.16 474 4.16 6 •,94* Tot, Unc, Cor, Avg, Unc, Cor, 105 976724 969687 9302 9235 67 40005 39710 #fat 381 4.1C 378 4.K 47 4.10 509181 505336 10834 10752 82 21039 20878 fcfat 448 4.13 444 4.13 4 105 1017851 1010641 9694 9625 69 41842 41536 #fat-398 4.13 396 4.13 2 61 694989 694339 11393 11383 10 28591 28566 469 4.11 468 4.11 1 1946 J r . 4 (305 days) J r . 4 (365 days) Sr. 4 (305 days) Sr. 4 (365 days) No.Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat.(lbs) Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Gows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat ( l b s / Tot. 1 Unc. Cor. Ave,, Unc, Gor. 118 1114227 1106141 9443 9374 69 45142 44826 %fat 383 4.05 380 4.05 3 78 * 860819 849842 11036 10895 141 34685 34251 $fat 44£ 4 . 0 : 439 4 . 0 : 6 134 1322935 1311853 9873 9873 83 53900 53427 #fat 402 4.0} 402 4,0^ 3 71 817496 808828 11514 11392 122 33169 32821 J&fat 467 4.06 462 4.06 5 1 9 4 1 Mature ( § 0 5 ) 5 Year (305) 6 Year (305) 7 Year (305) No.Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs. )' Tot, Unc, Cor, Unc, Cor, 4 2 9 4326525 4 2 4 9 0 7 1 10085 9905 1 8 0 176099 1 7 3 0 1 3 fofat 4 1 0 4 . 0 5 4 0 3 4 . 0 5 7 150 < 1 4 8 8 2 9 7 1 4 6 4 3 0 2 9922 9 7 6 2 160 6 0 0 1 7 59826 %fat 4054T08 399 4 . 0 9 6 1 0 1 1 0 2 3 4 0 8 1 0 0 4 5 5 9 1 0 1 3 3 9 9 4 6 187 4 2 0 3 7 4 1 2 6 4 fofat 4 1 6 4 . 1 3 4 0 9 4 . 1 3 7 59 608653 5 9 8 8 1 4 1 0 3 1 6 1 0 1 4 9 1 6 7 2 4 8 3 7 2 4 4 4 3 fofat 4 2 1 4 . 06 4 1 4 4 . 0 8 7 1 9 4 2 Tot, Unc, Cor. A Y R * . Unc. Cor. 4 1 6 4 1 7 4 5 0 8 4 1 3 0 8 6 0 10035 9 9 3 0 105 1 6 9 1 7 4 167105 fofat 4 0 7 4 . 6 6 4 0 2 4 . 0 ^ 5 1 2 4 1 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 1 9 9 4 6 6 9793 9673 1 2 0 4 9 8 2 0 49207 %fat 4 0 2 4 . 1 0 397 4 . 1 0 5 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 3 5 4 0 10099 10035 6 4 4 1 1 1 8 4 0 7 3 5 jlfat 4 0 7 4 . 0 3 4 0 3 4 . 0 2 4 79 7 9 3 1 0 0 7 8 3 5 3 4 10039 9 9 1 8 1 2 1 3 2 7 3 4 3 2 3 4 1 %fat 4 1 4 4 . 1 3 i 4 0 9 4 0 1 3 5 1 9 4 3 Tot, Unc. Cor. A Y S * , Unc. Cor. 515 5238 597 5 1 9 7 9 3 6 10172 10093 79 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 4 8 3 fofat 4 1 2 4 . 0 3 4 0 9 4 . 0 5 3 1 4 6 1459046 1450555 9 9 9 4 9935 59 59805 5 9 4 6 0 jfcfat 4 1 0 4 . 1 0 4-07 4 . 1 0 3 106 1 0 9 2 9 6 7 1 0 8 3 0 0 4 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 2 1 7 9 4 4 3 8 0 8 4 3 4 0 4 fofat 4 1 3 4 . 0 1 4 0 9 4 . 0 1 4 9 4 951808 9 4 6 5 9 8 10125 1 0 0 7 0 55 3 8 4 3 6 38229 fofat 4 0 9 4 . 0 4 4 0 7 4 . 0 4 2 1 9 4 4 Tot, Unc. Cor. Avg f Unc. Cor n 4 7 0 4 7 8 5 1 4 8 4768022 1 0 1 8 1 10145 36 194593 1 9 3 9 1 8 JKfat 4 1 4 4 „ 0 7 4 1 3 4 . 0 7 1 1 1 8 1 1 7 4 7 4 0 1 1 7 3 1 2 1 9955 9 9 4 2 1 3 4 - 7 4 8 6 4 - 7 4 2 1 %fat 4-02 4 . 0 4 4 0 2 4 . 0 4 0 1 1 0 1119150 1 1 1 4 7 2 6 1 0 1 7 4 1 0 1 3 4 4 0 4 5 6 8 7 45507 %fat 4 1 * 4 . 0 8 4 1 4 4 . 0 8 1 8 4 885257 8 8 0 3 7 4 3-0539 1 0 4 8 1 58 3 6 1 7 9 35992 fofat 4 3 1 4 J D 9 ; 4-28 4 . 0 9 3 1 9 4 * Tot, Unc, Cor. A Y S * Unc. Cor. 517 5208862 5182405 10095 1 0 0 2 4 7 1 211795 2 1 0 6 7 7 %fat 4 1 0 4 . 0 6 4 0 7 4 . 0 6 3 1 7 7 1771885 1 7 5 8 3 1 3 1 0 0 1 1 9 9 3 4 7 7 72949 7 2 3 8 6 jfat 4 1 2 4 0 1 2 4 0 9 4 . 1 2 3 9 8 9 8 8 4 9 9 9 8 1 9 9 5 10076 1 0 0 2 0 56 4 0 5 3 4 40265 Mat 4 1 3 4 , 0 9 : 4 i r ' 4 . i c 2 97 9 8 5 2 3 4 976504 1 0 1 4 7 110067 80 • 3 9 5 8 4 39235 JKfat 4 0 8 4 . 0 2 4 0 4 4 . 0 2 4 . ; 194-6 Mature (SO5) 5 Year (305) -~ 6 Year (305) 7 Year (305) No.Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs.' Tot, Unc, Cor, A v g . Unc, Cor, 565 5738512 56874-14 10139 10066 73 231724 231305 j&fat 410 4.04 409 4.0* 1 166 1662366 1651516 10014 9949 65 67566 67132 jsfat 407 4.06 404 4.06 3 132 1338091 1327228 10137 10055 82 54316 53886 J&fat-411 4.0^ 408 4.0* 3 80 799199 794-687 9990 9934 56 32373 32192 jfcfat 403 4j04 402 4 .05 1 -<• -1941 8 Year (305) 9 Year (305) 10 Year (305) 11 Year (305) No.Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs.) Tot. Unc Cor, Avg. Unc, Cor, 42 438444 425486 10439 10131 308 17441 16985 JKfat 41* 3.9* 404 3.9< 1 35 ) ) 352557 346484 10073 9899 174 14253 14013 fofat 407 4.0^ 400 4.0^ 7 23 224567 221666 9764 9638 126 9172 9052 JKfat 399 394 4.01 5 8 \ 83740 82336 10468 10292 176 3161 3109 fofat 39* 3.77 389 3.77 6 1942 Tot. Unc, Cor, Avg. Unc, Cor, 46 474382 466947 10313 10151 162 19063 18769 JKfat 414 4.0] 408 4.02 6 31 317333 317144 10237 10230 7 12591 12402 feat 406 3.9' 400 3.93 6 14 145824 143719 10416 10266 150 5606 5524 ifat 400 3T& 395 3 . 8 ' 5 10 • 103732 101936 10373 10194 179 4175 4102 JKfat 418 4.02 410 4.02 8 4241 4226 JKfat 386 4 , 0 384 4.0 2 1943 Toto Unc, Cor. Avg, Unc, Cor, 68 700866 694449 10307 10212 9 5 28746 28482 fofat 423 4.K 419 4.K 4 37 1 i 378615 37 5638 10233 10152 81 15351 15234 %f at 415 4.0^ 412 4 .06 3 33 347321 341182 10525 10339 186 13626 13382 JKfat 413 3.92 406 3.92 7 11 < 105998 105622 9636 9602 34 1944 Tot, Unc, Cor, Ave. Unc, Cor, 65 654678 653311 10072 10051 21 26475 26420 fofat 407 4 o0^ 406 4.0^ 1 50 503822 503143 10076 10063 13 20957 20930 feat 419 4 .16 419 4 .15 0 20 210270 206159 10514 10307 207 8410 8251 fofat 421 4.0C 413 4.0C 8 8 79384 79341 9923 9918 5 3153 3151 %fa,t 3943.97 394 3.97 0 194* Tot. Unc, Cor, Avg t Unc, Cor, 47 465755 465089 9910 9896 14 18645 18621 JKfat 397 4.0C 396 4.0C 1 44 454781 453896 10336 10316 20 18066 18031 fat 411 3 . 9 8 410 3 .97 1 26 276061 272748 10618 10490 128 11276 11133 feat 434 4.08 428 4.0£ 6 17 168231 164257 9896 9662 234 6730 6576 JKfat 396 4.00 387 4.00 9 194-6 8 Year (305) 9 Year (305) 10 Year (305) 11 Year (305) No.Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs.) Tot. Unc. Cor. AYR.. Unc. Cor. 77 800730 792366 10399 10290 109 32227 31887 $fat 417 4.03 414 4 o02 3 45 474732 472968 10550 10510 40 18742 18671 . $ f a t 416 3.94 415 3.94 1 32 319922 . 319628 9998 9988 10 12674 12663 %fat 396 3 . & 396 3.9^ 0 20 202031 199678 10102 9984 118 8133 8033 #fat 407 4.03 402 4.02 5 1 1 i i i ! 1941 1 12 Year (305) 13 Year (305) 14 Yr. ( W ) 15 Yr. (305) No.Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs.) Tot f Unc, Cor. Avg.-5 48069 48069 9614 9614 1982 1982 %fat 5 50044 48609 10009 9722 277 2059 1999 %fat 412 4.12 400 4.11 12 1 8686 8686 8686 :8686 340 340 fofat Unc, Cor. 396 4.1S 396 412 340 3.91 340 3.91 t 1942 Tot,, Unc, Cor, Avge, 4 38641 38641 9660 9660 0 1465 1465 %fat 4 39131 37906 9783 9476 7 1494 1452 #fa» 2 18607 18607 9304 -9304 0 758 758 fofat 1 • 9420 9420 9420 9420 0 350 3 5 0 , fofat Unc, Cor. 366 3 .79 366 3 .79 0 374 3 .82 363 3.83 11 379 4 . 05 379 4 .05 0 350 3.71 350 3.71 0 1943 Tot, Unc. Cor. Avg, Unc, Cor. 10 103361 102273 10336 10227 109 4085 4043 %fat 409 3 .95 404 3 .95 5 7 _ 69204 69204 9886 9886 2814 2814 ffat 402 4.07 402 4.07 3 29411 29411 9804 9804 0 1209 1209 %fat 403 4.11 403 4.11 0 1944 Tot, Unc. Cor. Avg, Unc. Cor. 7 76606 76606 10944 10944 0 2993 2993 J6fat 426 3 .89 426 3 .89 0 4 41997 41997 10499 10499 0 L664 L664 %fat 416 3.96 416 3 .96 0 2 20852 20852 10426 10426 0 850 850 %fat 425 4.08 425 4 . 08 0 2 18392 18392 9196 9196 0 739 739 fofat 170 4.02 370 4.02 0 194^ Tot, Unc. Cor. Avg. 4 41930 41930 10483 10483 0 1614 1614 fofat 4 37464 37464 9366 9366 0 1579 L579 %fat 2 19022 19022 9511 9511 0 818 818 %tat Unc. Cor. 404 3 .85 404 3 .85 0 39* 4.21 395 4.21 0 409 4 . 3 0 409 4.30 0 1946 1 12 Yr. (305) 13 Yr. (305) 14 Yr. (305) 1 5 Yr. (305) No.Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs.) I o t t Unc, Cor. Avg. Unc. Gor. 9 93084 92734 10342 10304 38 3695 3680 #fat 410 3.9/ 409 3.9S 1 4 1 37170 36609 9293 9152 141 1579 1557 fit at 3 9 ^ 4 . 2 ; 389 4.2; 6 > 1945 Tot. Unc, Cor, 16 1 Yr. (305) 11187 11187 419 419 o a O £3 H. o • • rj> H h < q alo no TO o Dlci- 4* • • \to II-3H o dj< a alo NO O D pJ O is Jet 4> • • 1 • • o cd O £3 H O • • <! Q cj O ^0 TO o a Jet 4* • 4 OK OJ « • oq O D • • < o a TO O C3 • *i o • o O <S3 ct 4s. • ro O cj O S3 hS O *% mm TO O !3 Jet 1 •o 4s. _j OJ 00 -n3 OJ NO O OJ NJT NO OJ NJT. OJ OJ H1 Si o o o CO 03 Ct CD OJ ON : NJT ^—' HH 4* 4s * HH vjivn -v3 00 ONVO vO CO-S3 Onji o >i> roo vO 4> HON HH 4s. 4s. H H ON ON NO NO 4s,-v3 ->0 HNO OOON HNO O 4* H NJT.OJ ^J-N3 H H 4* 4* hh ro ro H-s3 00 OOJ o o o ro oo OJNJT, CO ONO Ovj\ vjt.NO H H 4s- 4s. h h h ro h oono on ro ONO ON ^3 0J H 4* njt. Hnjt. H-^3 ro ro HH 4s. 4s. h ro h ro ro-s3 o ro h NJT NJT. 1—1  -v3 ON njt NO 4s - 4s. CO O CO NO-N3 S H- t? h-1 c 03 Ct CD OJ ON : NJT ^—' 4* 4* 0003 4* Hvjt, 4* -F* • • OO CO 00 HH CO 00 . ON-N3 fe^HON Hj ONOJ ' 03 004* et 4* 4s. COCO OJ 4s - -si 4* 4s. • • O O ON ON H H 00 00 . CONO tA-va co MJOJOJ 03 NJT NJT ct 4* 4* ONPO CO 4s- 4s-• • o o OJ\n HH ON-vd . NO H ci^NJTNJT H> ONOJ OJ H ON ct 4s- 4s. H H "O 00 ON-<3 ON CO 4s-. COO te^,ONNO 4s- 4S>|M>NO-<1 • • |0J ->j-s3 O Olct 4 JT»*'J\ 4s. 4s. H-<1 CO ONO NO 4s. 4s-• • O O H H ON-va . COM fe^H-Nj HJOJ 4S. 03 H 4s. ct SB c+ cr CO 03 Ct CD OJ ON : NJT ^—' NO ro NO ON CO NO -n3 ro 00 H o o CQ NJT. K| CQ • OJ ON NJT. v ' HH HH H H O O ON-s3 ON-O CO ro H NO-sj nOnjt^ NJTON H CO OOH HH HH H H H H H CONO OJ 4s> O roOJ vj\\j\ nj\vj\0 HOJ NO H H CO HH HH H H O O H-<J CO 4* njt OJOJ-vd 4s. ON coro o h 4* roH 4*0 H H COCO H H 4s- 4s. -N3-n3 ro-vj -<] O-O 4s.NJi H H ro ON-v3 NJT VJT. H H NO NO H H OJ 4s. rovjT-<3 ro co O HH ro on H O H OOH 4s-VJT. H- h-1 IV t—J Cf CO NJT. K| CQ • OJ ON NJT. v ' -P- -P COCO -F*OJ-N3 4*4* • • HH VJlON -p- 4s, 4s, S^.O ON H)vjvro 03 ct 4* 4* OOOO 4s - 4s. O0 4s. 4s. • • O O NO NO 4* 4* ON ON . 4s- CO fAOJvJX Hj rooj OS ct 4*4* -<1 00 ON-vjOJ 4* 4s. • • o o 4* 4* ro ro . 4s-NO sACONO Hi ONOJ OJ et 4s. 4s. -N3 00 ojno ro 4s. 4^ • • o o OJOJ 4s. 4s. . 4S.-N3 JANO O Hi OOH 03 ct 4s- 4s. OJOJ -N3 CO CONO oo 4s. ro oj o 1^-N3\jt 4s- -Mi-bNOH • • 103 H Hlct ^ c+- (—' a4 CO NJT. K| CQ • OJ ON NJT. v ' 00 4* njt 00 ON H ON, H o o si CO ON • OJ ON na HH vO vO HH vO vO -v3 CO O ON on no on 4> ro no h o o ro 00-xJ HH NO NO ro ro o o H OH O CO O HH NOOJ o ro ro oj on OJ-S3 NO H H OOH H H NO O HNJT ON NO O ONH-<3 4s " 4> 4^-Hvn HO O H H 0000 H H OJVJT. H CONO NO O 4s- ro-v3 njt O NO 4s-OJ H 4s. O 00 hh -va~o h ro ojoj HnO O O^J ro onno o -N3 -vO COnjt ON 00 •v] O H- ?r cr CO ON • OJ ON na 4* -p. CO 00 OJ ONNO 4* 4* • • HH ro ro , COO teA4s>NO h> coro 0) et 4*4* CONO 4s. coro 4* 4* • • OO -N3 ON OJOJ ON ON 1 . ONNO tAroo H> O0-<1 £0 ct 4s- 4* -N3 o-va 4*4* o o novo £no teAO CO H)-s3 H OJ ct 4s. 4* -N3-v] ONOJ NO 4s. 4s-• • O O rN r~\ OJOJ OJ 4* i NJT, O teANO O H) CO 4s-03 ct 4s-njt OJOJ NO O O O vjT-va ro. ro on JSAnO h 4s- 4S.Jh>-noh • • 103 H Hlct 'c+ M cr CO ON • OJ ON na ON OJ ON 4* NJT H NJ\ NJT NJT. NJT ON H o o CO •N3 HJ hi • R H H -<]-0 / H H OJ 4»> H ON CO vjt.-<] CO-<3 0> ^3 4s> <Cj>NO 4* "OH 4*. Co HH -N3-NC1 HH njt njt ->a oo ro-o oovjt. 4s. ro oo -<j 4* h rovji 4s- H HH H H 00NO Hnjt ON NOnjt. O ON-VO cooj nonjv 4S. ro 00 ro co H H ON on ro ro on on OH OJ 00 OO-Onjt COON ONO ON OJ o H ON HH -<1-n3 H H OH fONJT-v3 H GO ONO^-3 NO O 4s-H njt, O O OO 1: H- h-1 fV M CO ON JT -P -p-CONO 00OJH • HH OJ 4s --UJUJ O O 4s. NO saioh Hj OOJ OJ ct 4* -P--N3 00 4s- ONO oo VJTNJ1 OJOJ o o S^NO H HjnO ON OJ 45. 4s, ON ON NO NO oocd ro ro OJOJ JAOOO Hi OOJ OJ ct 4s. 4s* NONO OJ OOJ .^.^ o o WONI ro ro ON-N3 nO H tAfOH HjOJ 4S-03 et 4s. 4s. H-N3 00 OOO 4s> -fs-Oofe ro ro CONO ONOJ EANJT.0 Hj ONO 03 ct c+ M CT* CQ ON JT f 1946 Mature (365) 5 Yrs. (365) 6 Yrs. (365) 7 Yrs. (365) No.Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs.) Tot. Unc Cor Ave. 1 Unc Cor , 444 5358934 5324196 12070 11991 79 216335 214919 JKfat 487 4.0. 484 4.0' 3 122 r 1433042 1428211 11746 11707 39 58092 57896 JKfat 476 4.0 ' 475 4.0! 1 92 > 1096524 1091487 11919 11864 55 44641 44425 JKfat 485 4.0 483 4.0 2 71 7 7 861322 853141 12131 12016 115 34557 34241 JKfat 487 4.01 482 4.01 5 1 • 194-1 8 yr. (365) 9 yr. (365) 10 yr. (365) 11 Yr. (365) No.Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs.) Tot, Unc. Gor. ; AVg,. ; Unc. Cor. 54- 676787 656678 12533 12161 372 27174 26368 fofat 503 4 . 0 1 488 4 . 0 2 15 30 351433 341106 117X4 11370 344 14079 13660 fofat 4-69 4.00 4-55 4.00 14 24 296841 289946 12368 12081 287 11913 11639 fofat 496 4 o 0 1 485 4 . 01 11 26 322958 314774 12421 12107 314 12976 12649 ffat 499 4 . 0 2 487 4 . 0 1 12 •194-2 Tot. Unc. Gor. Avg, Unc. Cor. 47 566263 559600 12048 11906 142 23101 22830 fofat 492 4 . 0 8 486 4 . 0 8 6 34 407758 396592 11993 11664 329 L6443 L5985 fofat 4-84 4.04 4-70 4 . 03 14 20 241249 239867 12062 11993 69 9808 9748 f>fat 490 4 . 06 487 4 . 0 6 3 23 274811 265031 11948 11523 . 425 L1066 L0667 fofat . 4-81 4 . 03 4-64 4 0 0 2 17 194-3 Tot f Unc. Cor. Avg, Unc. Cor. 4-2 507875 506115 12092 12050 42 20534 20468 f0fa,t 489 4.04 487 4 004 2 40 484871 479679 12122 11992 130 L9389 L9174 fofat 4-85 4.0 479 3 . 9 9 6 17 203600 200851 11976 11815 161 8136 8023 ifat 479 4.0 472 3.99 7 9 98510 98327 10946 10925 21 3910 3905 %fat 4-34 3 .96 4-34 3 . 9 7 0 1944 Toto Unc. Cor. Avg. Unc. Gor. 46 553476 552389 12032 12008 24 22410 22366 fofat 487 4 o08 486 4 o 0 5 1 35 417512 416951 11929 11913 16 L6934 L6911 fofat 4-84 4 . 06 4-83 4 . 06 1 31 370730 369486 11959 11919 40 14954 14903 ffat 482 4.03 481 4.03 1 23 286 525 28 5334 12458 12406 52 LI 535 L1487 ifat 502 4 . 03 4-99 4 . 0 3 3 194-5 Tot, Unc. Cor. Ave© Unc. ' Gor. *• 46 564190 563016 12265 12239 26 22281 22233 fofat 484 3o95 483 3 » 9 4 1 34 407886 404181 11997 11888 109 L6491 L6331 fofat 1-8* 4 o04 1-80 4 004 5 2 5 295039 293250 11802 11730 72 11893 11824 fofat 476 4.03 473 4.03 3 15 182109 182109 12141 12141 ' 0 7208 7208 ifat 4-81 3o96 4-81 3 .96 0 1946 8 yr. (365) 9 yr. (365) 10 yr. (365) 11 Yr. (365) No.Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs.) 'Tot, Unc. f Cor, ! Avgo : Unc, Cor. 48 608183 600606 12670 12513 157 24811 24491 %fat 517 4.0c 510 4.0c 7 35 434117 430280 12403 12293 110 17326 17175 fofat 495 3.9S 491 3.9S 4 20 246869 246761 12343 12338 5 9794 9788 fofat 490 3.9^ 489 3.9; 1 23 285707 283562 12422 12329 93 11506 11421 fofat 500 4 .03 497 4.03' 3 i | i i 1 i i -• 1941 12 yr. (365) 13 yr. (365) 14 yr, (365) 15 yr. (365) No.Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs.) Tot. Unc, Cor. Unc, Cor. 8 88541 88541 11068 11068 3584 3584 fofat 448 4.0' 448 4.0! 3 39165 35304 13055 11768 287 1581 1424 fofat 527 4.04 475 4.03 52 2 23073 23073 11536 11536 903 903 "ffat 452 3.9^ 452 3.9] 1 13686 13686 13686 13686 572 572 fofat 572 4 017 572 4.17 1942 Tot. Unc, Cor. Avg. Unc. Cor. 17 204933 202464 12055 11910 145 8239 8143 fofat 485 4.02 479 4.02 6 6 1 67946 67946 11324 11324 0 2723 2723 fofat 4-54- 4.01 454 4.01 0 6 729,79 68727 12163 11455 708 2913 2730 fofat 486 4.0 455 3.9^ 31 1 10568 10568 10568 10568 0 415 415 fofat 41* 3.93 415 3.93 0 1943 Tot, Unc. Cor. Avg. Unc. Cor. 12 143357 142215 11946 11851 95 5662 5620 fofat 472 3.95 468 3.95 4 10 121291 117722 12129 11772 7 4787 4649 fofat 479 3.95 465 3.95 1 11871 11871 11871 11871 0 459 459 ifat 459 3787 459 3.87 0 1944 Tot, Unc. Cor. Avg. Unc. Cor. 7 82260 82083 11751 11726 25 3339 3332 fofat A-77 4.06 476 4.06 1 7 87467 87467 12495 12495 0 3481 3481 fofat 497 3.98 497 3.98 0 2 23433 23201 11717 11600 117 905 ffat 453 3.8? 447 3.86 6 3 • 31877 31877 10626 10626 0 1299 1299 jfcfat 433 4 .07 4-33 4.07 0 1945 Tot, Unc. Cor. Avg, Unc. Cor. 11 126073 125368 11461 11397 64 5109 5080 fifat 464 4.05 462 4.05 2 6 68062 68062 11344 11344 0 2692 2692 %fat 449 3.96 449 3.96 9 8 94309 94309 11789 11788 I 3807 3807 %fat 476 4.04 476 4.04 0 2 23941 23941 11971 11971 0 m m fofat 167 3.90 4-67 3.90 0 O SCO o t5 tt|» 4 Op 4 Op O • o o • Unc. Cor. •c H H <J o a O \0 n O D e+ 4* • c Unc. Cor. J» H < a a o h nop c+vo • 4 O • ^ Q d o 53 4 O fo HH < Q cj O vO W O P ct^ . H Ol» (J) • • o a O £3 h! O W O t3 • hi O o . H O cr o H vO 4* ro H H ro H o o o •s. CD H On ! hi * OJ ON N_r H H H+J O O O O OJ OJ OJOJ o o o o o o o o o 12111 10355 12111 10355 1756 h h ro ro H O H HOJ H ON-v3 OJVJI H ON-v_ Ojvjt. OvOvO 0000 H H HH O O o o ojvjt. oo vn oo ro HOJ HOJ vj\H ON HO s cr to H On ! hi * OJ ON N_r 4* -F* ro ro o on on • • H H J> 4* ro ro ' ONON 05 cr OJ 4S * ONCOVJl On~sJOJ OJOJ • • •N3-N3 -F*-F* OJ 4> 00VJI . -v30J M> 05 c+ •F* 4* 4* 4*vO ONvnH 4> 4* • • HH CovO vO OO . o ro H> 05 c+ HOJvji OJ^3 O J> 4* • . H H 4* 4* OJVn . njO 05 ct p c+ i—1 cr CO H On ! hi * OJ ON N_r H i H o o CO H -N3 *< 4 . •—\ OJ ON •—• HH H H o o o o o o o o 00 Co coco HH H H H H OJOJ OJ ro ro ro OHH H H" M sv i—i cr en H -N3 *< 4 . •—\ OJ ON •—• OJOJ OH H \ tt io ro -F» OJOJ . H H 05 c+ O O o ro ro 4_ 4J. • • J> J> OJOJ ro 05 ct cr to H -N3 *< 4 . •—\ OJ ON •—• <-O o to We 1—' IV cr CO c+ cr to H o o 5; to 1 s M cr to -•-_ SB c+- M cr CO 1946 12 yr. (365) 13 yr. (365) 14 yr. (365) 15 yr. (365) No.Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs.) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs.) Tot. Unc, Cor, Avg. Unc, Cor, • 19 • 219765 218729 11567 11512 55 8624 8582 %fat 454 3.92 452 3.9: 2 8 i 103707 101721 12963 12715 248 4284 4200 %fat 536 4.1: 525 4.1: 11 1 > 11747 11747 11747 11747 0 467 467 #fat 467 3.9* 467 3.9* 0 3 \ ! 37 566 37 566 12522 12522 0 1376 1376 fofat 459 3.67 459 3.67 0 • METHOD USED FOR CORRECTING RECORDS MADE PARTLY ON 3* AND PARTLY ON 2x A DAY MILKING, TO AN ENTIRE 2x A DAY MILKING BASIS Some cows were milked for a certain portion of their lactation period on a 3x a day milking system. For the remainder of the lactation period, the usual 2x a day milking was undertaken. The number of days on 3x a day milking is given in each case and also the total length of lactation period, but no mention is made of the actual quantity of milk produced while on 3x a day milking. Thus a method based on the normal lactation curve was devised for determining in each case how much extra milk was produced over and above that which would have been produced had the cow been on a 2x a day milking instead of a 3x a day milking. This method was calculated as follows: 1. The monifly figures for the normal lactation curve on a 2x a day milking covering a twelve-month period were used. 2. These monthly production figures were also cal-culated on a 3x a day milking basis, by dividing by the correction factor 0.833. 3. Considering each consecutive month, in a twelve-month lactation period, as being on a 3x a day milking with the remainder on a 2x a day milking, the length of time on 3x a day milking was expressed as a percentage of the entire lactation length. 4. Using the normal lactation curve figures, for each consecutive month on 3x milking, the quantity of milk produced on 3* milking was expres s e d a s a p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e y i e l d # 5. Thus a graph with the following two factors was drawn up and used for a l l corrections; abscissa - length of time on 3x a day milking as percentage of total lactation length. ordinate - extra milk due to 3x a day milking as percentage of total lactation yield. 6. In each case the extra milk produced due to 3x milking was subtracted from the total milk yield, so as to give the cor-rected milk yield for 2x a day milking. To Correct "Lactations P a r t i a l l y on 3x a Day Milking to Entire 2x a Day Milking NORMAL LACTATION CURVE FIGURES Month Avge. Dly. In Terms Fat Monthly Avge. Milk Pro- Milk Extra Milk Time on of Milk Y i e l d of % of Content Milk Y l d . Daily duced on Prod. Due to 3x 3x Milking Lacta- (lbs.) Highest % as a % of Milk 3x as $of on 3x as a % of as % T o t a l tion (2xMilklng) Y i e l d Tot.Lacta- Y i e l d Milk Prod. Corr.to E n t i r e Lactation t i o n Y i e l d (lbs.) in E n t i r e 2x as % Y i e l d Time (2xMilkingO> (3xMilkg .) Lact.Period Entire ' Lactation  1 3 2 . 9 9 9 . 6 4 . 0 7 1 1 . 9 3 39.5 1 4 . 0 1 1 . 6 5 2 . 3 5 8 . 3 3 2 3 3 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 3 . 9 4 2 3 . 9 0 3 9 . 6 27.38 2 2 . 8 1 4 . 5 7 1 6 . 6 6 3 3 0 . 3 9 2 . 0 4 . 0 6 3 4 . 8 9 3 6 . 4 39.15 32.61 6 . 5 4 25.00 4 2 8 . 4 8 6 . 0 4 . 0 0 4 5 . 1 9 3 4 . 1 49.70 4 1 . 4 4 8 . 2 6 3 3 . 3 2 5 2 7 . 0 8 2 . 0 4 . 1 0 5 4 . 9 8 3 2 . 4 _ 5 9 . 4 6 49.52 9 . 9 4 4 1 . 6 5 6 2 4 . 7 7 5 . 0 4 . 1 0 6 3 . 9 4 2 9 . 7 68.05 5 6 . 6 7 1 1 . 3 8 . 5 0 . 0 0 7 2 3 . 4 7 1 . 0 4 . 1 7 7 2 . 4 3 2 8 . 1 7 5 . 9 3 6 3 . 2 4 12.69 5 8 . 3 1 8 2 2 . 7 6 9 . 0 4 . 2 0 80.67 2 7 . 3 8 3 . 3 8 6 9 . 4 1 1 3 . 9 7 6 6 . 6 4 9 2 1 . 1 6 4 . 0 4 . 2 0 88.32 2 5 . 3 90.08 7 5 . 0 2 15.06 7 5 . 0 0 1 0 1 7 . 1 52 . 0 4 . 5 0 9 4 . 5 2 20.5 9 5 . 3 9 7 9 . 4 5 1 5 . 9 4 8 3 . 3 0 1 1 1 1 . 3 3 4 . 0 4 . 5 9 98.62 1 3 . 5 9 8 . 8 5 8 2 . 3 4 16.51 9 1 . 6 3 1 2 3 . 8 1 1 . 5 4 . 7 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 4 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 0 8 3 . 2 9 1 6 . 7 1 1 0 0 TO TEST THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HtLK AND FAT AVERAGES CORRECTED AND UNCORRECTED EOR 3x DAY MILKING Milk Averages: N -7T Uncorrected 806358 84 9599.50 7 7 . 2 5 650213224164 7740633000 7889574628 1339.5 1339.5 9.2 Corrected 7 9 9 8 6 9 8 4 9 5 2 2 . 2 5 63979P417iL61 7 6 1 6 5 5 3 0 0 0 7 7 6 0 0 1 5 9 0 2 1314.7 1314.7 9 . 2 * 145.6 (145.6 f + (142.9)* 142.9 * 204 4 5 7 7 * 2 5 JJ. o . 3 7 For Pft 0 . 0 5 and N«84, observed value of X a t 2 . Therefore:*^ is less than 2 , therefore there is no significant difference between uncorrected and corrected milk averages. Fat Averages: cr ~ J ^^^c7fL Uncorrected 33155 84 394.7 3.1 1099254025 13086350 13321773 53.2 53.2 ~ 9 ^ ~ = 5.78 Corrected 32893 84 391.6 1081949449 12880350 13196867 52.2 52.2 " ~9^~~ 5.67 (5.78) (5.67) = 8.1 For P* 0.05 and 84, observed value of Xt»2, T h e r e f o r e i s less than 2, therefore there is no significant difference between uncorrected and corrected fat averages, Method of Reporting F i v e Year Averages The records were treated under the following fourteen main classes: Mature 305 day and mature 365 day. 4 yr. olds 305 day, J r s . , 305 day, Srs. 365 day, J r s . 365 day, Srs. ^ II II H II II II II »t « H II H It « 2 » it it it ii ti ti it it it ti « it it In the immature classes s i x month periods were used to determine c l a s s ranges. This provides more accuracy than using animal class ranges. The mature classes were extended and treated separately, according to i n d i v i d u a l years. Each c l a s s , f o r the f i v e years concerned, was treated as follows* 1. The t o t a l number of cows obtained. 2. The t o t a l number of pounds of milk a c t u a l l y produced. 3 . The t o t a l number of pounds of f a t act u a l l y produced. 4. The percentage of f a t i n the milk was found by di v i d i n g the t o t a l quantity of f a t by the t o t a l quantity of milk, m u l t i p l i e d by one hundred, 5. The average production for each class was found by div i d i n g the t o t a l number of pounds of milk and f a t by the t o t a l number of cows. i 0 CLASS 305 DAY DIVISION 365 DAT DIVISION % DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 365 and 305 DIVISION RECORDS No. Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) % Fat No. Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) % Fat Milk Fat Jr.2 Totals 1941- 45 1942- 46 AvgS. 1941- 45 1942- 46 Difference % " F.C.M. Sr.2 Totals 1941- 45 1942- 46 Avgs, 1941- 45 1942- 46 Difference % « F.C.M. J r . .3 Totals 1941-45 1942-46 Avgs. 1941- 45 1942- 46 Difference % " F.C.M. 1211 1252 8764590 9108472 7237 7275 ^.38 0 .53 "110 364777 378466 301 302 / 1 0.33 4.16 4.16 859 895 7611210 7974957 8861 8911 / 50 0.57 QOQQ 314883 330030 367 369 / 2 0.55 4.14 4.14 18.34 18.16 1476 1510 11379479 11716153 7710 7759 / 49 0.64 7934 473364 486044 321 322 / 1 0.31 4.16 4 .15 1024 1139 9467378 10609540 9245 9315 / 76 0.76 9501 392423 438172 383 385 / 2 O.52 4 .15 4 .13- 16.70 16.36 796 820 6480298 6710714 8141 8184 / 43 ' 0.53 8344 267774 276935 336 338 / 2 0 .60 4.13 4.13 476 491 4708498 4872722 9892 9924 / 32 0.32 10120 194381 201459 408 410. / 2 0.49 4.13 4.13 17.53 17.56 • CLASS 305 DAY DIVISION 365 DAY DIVISION % DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 365 and 305 DIVISION RECORDS No. Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) % Fat No. Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) % Fat Milk Fat Sr. 3 Totals 1941-45 194-2-46 Avgs. 1941- 45 1942- 46 Difference % " F.C.M. Jr.4 Totals 1941- 45 1942- 46 Avgs f 1941- 45 1942- 46 Difference % " F.C.M. Sr.4 Totals 1941- 45 1942- 46 Avgs t 1941- 45 1942- 46 Difference % " F.C.M. 879 939 7665837 8224707 8721 8759 1* 38 0.44 8919 315943 339082 359 361 / 2 0.56 4.12 4.12 457 505 4704599 5192730 10295 10283 - 12 - 0.12 10488 194519 214460 426 425 - 1 - 0.24 4.13 4.13 14.82 15.06 526 542 4752252 4943564 9035 9121 / 86 0.95 9243 195121 202172 371 373 f\2 0.54 4.11 4.09 297 308 3236540 3367817 10897 10934 / 37 0.34 11094 133814 138043 451 448 - 3 - 0.67 4.13 4.10 16.58 16.74 502 543 4852262 5254153 9666 9676 / 10 0.10 9810 199073 215143 397 396 - 1 - 0.25 4.10 4.09 283 305 3271124 3525007 11559 11557 - 2 - .02 11718 134587 144384 476 473 - 3 - 0.63 4.11 4.10 16.28 16.28 • CLASS Mature 305 DAY DIVISION No. Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) % Fat Mature 365 DAY DIVISION No. Cows Milk (lbs' Fat (lbs) % Fat % DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 365 and 305 DIVISION RECORDS Milk Fat 194-1 T o t a l Avge. 1942 T o t a l Avge. 1943 T o t a l Avge. 1944 Tota l Avge. 1945 T o t a l Avge. 1946 To t a l Avge. 1941-)Total 194$ ) A v g e # Inc. ) F.C.M. 1942*) T o t a l 1946 ) . Inc.) A v S e -Difference 429 416 %5 470 517 565 ,2347 2483 4249071 9905 4130860 9930 5197936 10093 173013 403 167105 402 210483 409 351 353 359 4127409 11759 4167112 11804 4202005 11705 168131 479 168697 478 169561 472 4768022 10145 5182405 10024 5687414 10066 193918 413 210677 407 231305 409 390 387 444 4648457 11919 4560291 11784 5324196 11991 188735 484 186168 481 214919 484 23528294 10025 10115 24966637 10055 / 30 0.30 955196 407 101348$ 408 / 1 0.24 1840 4.06 1933 4.06 21705274 881292 11796 479 •11903 22902061 928080 11848 480 / 52 / 1 0.44 0.21 4.06' 4.05 15.13 15.00 305 DAY DIVISION 365 DAY DIVISION % DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 365 and 305 DIVISION RECORDS CLASS No. Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) % Fat No. Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) % Fat Milk Fat 5yr. Totals 194-I-45 715 7045817 28830C 430 5023582 206200 1942-46 731 7232971 295606 471 5519509 225717 Avgsf, 1941-45 9854 403 4 . 09 11683 480 4.10 1942-46 9895 404 4 . 09 11719 479 4 . 09 1 5 . 5 6 i5 .6e : Difference / 41 / 1 / 36 - 1 0.42 0 . 2 5 0.31 - 0.21 6yr. Totals 1941-45 516 5197824 211175 377 4450859 181778 1942-46 547 5520493 223797 408 4812279 195906 Avgs, 1941-45 10073 409 4 . 06 11806 482 4 . 08 1942-46 10092 409 4 . 0 5 11795 480 4.07 14.44 14 .79 Difference / 19 0 - 11 - 2 % " 0.19 - 0.09 - 0.42 7vr. Totals 1941-45 413 4185824 170240 294 3443601 139978 1942-46 434 4381697 177989 304 3594-792 145563 -Aygs, 1941-45 10135 412 4 . 0 7 11713 476 4 . 06 1942-46 10096 410 4 . 06 11825 479 4 . 0 5 14.62 14.41 Difference - 39 - 2 / 112 / 3 - 0 . 3 8 - 0.49 0 . 96 0 . 6 3 • 3 0 5 DAY DIVISION 3 6 5 DAY DIVISION % DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 365 and 305 DIVISION RECORDS CLASS N Q . Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) % Fat No. • Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) % Fat Milk Fat. 8yr. Totals 1941-45 268 2705282 109277 235 2837798 114265 1942-46 303 3072162 124179 229 2781726 112388 Avss. 1941-45 10094 408 4.04 12076 486 4.03 1942-46 10139 410 4.04 12147 491 4.04 16.53 16.50 Difference / 45 / 2 / 71 / 5 % " 0.45 0.49 0.58 1.03 9.vr. Totals 1941-45 197 1996305 80610 173 2038509 82061 -1942-46 207 2122789 85268 178 2127683 85576 A v g s . 1941-45 10134 409 4.04 11783 474 4.03 1942-46 10255 412 4.02 11953 481 4.02 14.21 14 .35 Difference / 121 / 3 / 170 / 7 % » 1.19 0.74 1.45 1.48 lOvr. Totals 1941- 45 1942- 46 116 125 1185474 1283436 47342 50953 117 113 1393400 1350215 56137 54286 Avgs. 1941-45 10220 408 3.99 11909 480 4.03 1942-46 10267 408 3.97 11949 480 4.02 14.08 15.00 Difference / 47 0 / 40 0 0.46 0.34 3 0 5 DAY DIVISION 3 6 5 DAY DIVISION % DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 3 6 5 and 305 DIVISION •-• • • . . . . CLASS No. Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) % Fat No. Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) % Fat Milk Fat l l y r . Totals 1 9 4 1 - 45 1942- 46 54 6 6 533492 650834 21164 26088 96 93 1 1 4 5 5 7 5 1114363 45916 44688 Avgs. 1941- 45 1942- 46 9879 9861 392 395 3 . 9 7 4.01 11933 11982 478 481 4.01 4.01 17.70 17.88 Differenc % » - 18 - 0.18 / 3 0 . 7 7 / 49 0.41 / 3 0.63 12yr. Totals 1941- 45 1942- 46 30 34 307519 352184 12097 13795 5 5 6 6 640671 770859 25759 30757 Avgs. 1941- 45 1942- 46 10251 10358 403 406 3 . 9 3 3 . 9 2 11649 II680 468 466 4.02 3 . 9 9 11.32 1 2 . 8 8 Difference % '« / 107 104 / 3 0.74 / 31 0.26 - 2 - 0.43 13yr. Totals 1941- 45 1942- 46 24 23 235180 223180 9508 9066 32 37 376501 442918 14969 17745 Avgs. 1941- 45 1942- 46 9799 9703 396 394 4 . 0 4 4.06 11766 11971 468 480 3 . 9 8 4.01 18.95 17.92 Difference » 96 • - 0.97 - 2 - 0 . 5 1 A 205 1.78 / 12 2.67 305 DAY DIVISION 365 DAY DIVISION' % DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 365 and 305 DIVISION RECORDS . GLASS No. Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) % Fat No. Cows Milk (lbs) Fat (lbs) % Fat Milk Fat 14Yr. Totals. 87892 87892 3635 3635 18 17 209310 197984 8335 7899 41- 45 42- 46 9 9 41- 4^ 42- 46 9766 9766 404 404 4.14 4.14 11628 11646 463 465 3 .98 3 .99 Differenc e 0 0 / 18 0.15 / 2 0.43 I 5 v r . Totals 41- 45 42- 46 4 4 36498 36498 1429 1429 8 91943 115823 3678 4482 Avgs. 41- 45 42- 46 9125 9125 357 357 3 . 9 2 3.92 11493 11582 460 448 4.00 3 . 8 7 Difference 0 0 / 89 - 12 0.78 - 2 . 61 1 1 l 6 v r . Totals 41- 45 42- 46 1 1 11187 11187 419 419 4 5 42204 52504 1714 2140 4 y £ S t 41- 45 42- 46 11187 11187 419 419 3 .74 3 .74 10551 10501 429 428 4 . 06 4 . 0 8 1 Difference % » 0 0 - 50 - 0.47 - 1 - 0 . 2 3 17vr. Totals Avgs. ** Difference 1 2 11321 21406 11321 10703 ^ ^ 4 5 ^  502 933 502 467 , Z%97 4*43 4.36 /o 6 9 AGE Of COW — yenxs. /A ui o I oo to ="> #39U<1N 5 /2oo Qurtt-z/zy /a/(P Cows - 3 6tT D#y Divis/oA/, /ooo 800 _Loo O 3rJL Jr. 3 Sr.3 3V. <f S t * 13 1*+ PiGE C L A S S E S 3. DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING CALCULATIONS. 1. Five-year moving averages were established for the two periods 1941 to 1945 inclusive, and 1942 to 1946 inclusive. . 2. These averages were calculated with disregard to the fact that some cows were milked 3x a day for part of the lactation. The averages were also calculated with appropriate corrections being made for a l l cases where 3x a day ndlking occurred. A test of significance showed that the effect of a 3x a day ndlking did not make any significant difference to the five-year moving averages. 3. The Ayrshire cow, as represented by the five-year moving averages, appears to reach maturity between five and six years of age. The production rises very slightly between six and ten years of age. After ten years, a slight decrease in production seems to occur, but beyond twelve years the number of cows on test is so small as to render the figures unreliable. 4. A frequency diagram of the number of cows qualifying on R.O.P. during the period 1942 to 1946 inclusive, indicates a steady decline in the number of qualifying cows as theage increases. There is , however, a sharper decline between the number of two-year olds and three-year olds, than between any other groups. 5. Taking the immature classes separately and the combined mature classes, there was some difference between the two five-year averages. These differences were as follows: MILK FAT lbs. % Its, % Range of diff. 2 0.02 1 0.21 to to to to 86 0.95 3 0.67 Thus there is not much change in the two five-year averages. The author takes the view that i f the percentage system were adopted each new five-year average should be used, irrespective of how small i t might differ from the previous five-year average. The reason being that these figures would represent the latest true averages as they exist, and thus must be retained and used as such. 6. Taking the immature classes separately and the com-bined mature classes, the differences between the 365-day and 395-day five-year averages for the period 1942 - 1946, ranged as follows: MILK FAT 14.82$ 15.06$ Range of diff. to to 18.34$ 18.16$ The present Canadian Ayrshire R.O.P. standards for qualification, show a difference between 365-day and 305-day requirements of 1500 pounds milk, which represents a difference of 21$ to 15$ accord-ing to age. t Jombert points out that the U.S. Ayrshire breed average shows a 15$ difference between 365 and 305 day records regardless of age. U.B.C ROSALINDS ADMIRAL Name of Daughter & Registered Number AGE CLASS DAYS IN MILK ' PRODUCTION PRODUCTION EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE CLASS AVERAGE PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON A MATURE EQUIV. No. REC-FAT FAT BASIS ORDS. Yrs Days MILK FAT i FAT CORR. MILK MILK FAT CORR. MILK MILK FAT 1 . 2 4 6 7 9 9 LADY 2 1 9 8 3 0 5 Sr. 2 305 8954 4 2 0 4 . 6 9 9 8 8 2 1 1 5 1 3 0 1 2 4 10655 500 1 2 . 2 4 6 8 0 1 LUCY 2 3 2 4 3 6 5 Sr. 2 3 0 5 J r . 4 3 6 5 5 3 6 5 9 3 7 5 3 8 6 4 . 1 2 9 5 4 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 9 7 0 6 3 9 9 4 - 305 8097 3 3 7 4 . 1 6 8 2 9 1 89 90 90 8502 3 4 7 5 - 3 6 5 1 0 0 0 9 4 2 4 4 . 2 4 1 0 3 6 4 8 4 8 8 87 8 9 8 6 3 8 1 3 3 . 256689 M A R G A R E : : 2 1 9 2 3 6 5 Sr. 2 3 6 5 1 3 3 6 8 4 8 5 3 . 6 3 12622 1 4 4 1 2 6 1 3 3 1 3 8 4 0 502 1 4 . 251281 MARIGOLD 2 3 2 2 5 2 6 3 3 6 5 Sr. 2 3 0 5 Sr. 3 305 Sr. 4 3 0 5 5 3 6 5 229 8323 5 6 1 3 318 269 3 . 8 2 4 . 7 9 8099 6 2 8 0 8 9 6 4 8 3 7 5 8 5 7 0 8616 6062 329 291 4 4 3 1 0 2 4 4 6 8 8 5 271 3 . 9 3 6 8 1 9 7 1 6 8 7 0 7092 279 5 - 2 2 8 7 2 9 9 294 4 . 0 3 7 3 3 0 7 3 72 72 7 5 3 3 303 5 . 251282 MARJORIE 2 2 2 4 3 6 5 Sr. 2 2 7 8 6 1 7 1 2 8 8 4 . 6 7 6 7 8 8 6 6 7 5 7 1 6 3 8 8 298 1 6 . 251280 MILDRED 2 1 9 9 3 6 5 Sr. 2 305 J r . 4 3 0 5 5 3 6 5 9 3 6 1 3 8 5 4 . 1 1 9 5 1 9 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 9 6 9 2 398 4 34 2 4 6 7 3 1 0 2 8 4 3 . 8 8 7 1 8 4 80 7 6 7 8 7676 293 5 293 8532 3 8 6 4 . 5 2 9203 8 5 9 5 9 1 8805 3 9 8 3 U.B.C. ROSALINDS ADMIRAL (2) Name or Daughter & Registered Number AGE CLASS DAYS IN MILK PRODUCTION PRODUCTION EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE CLASS AVERAGE PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON A MATURE EQUIV. No. REC-FAT FAT BASIS ORDS. Yrs Days MILK FAT (, FAT CORR. MILK MILK FAT GORR. MILK MILK FAT 7. 251279 MO IRA 2 327 365 Sr. 305 J r . 305 5 2 365 8922 367 4.11 9074 96 95 96 9237 380 4 47 4 211 5978 26I 4.37 6306 66 70 68 6277 274 5 - 293 8532 386 4 . 5 2 9203 85 95 91 8805 398 3 8. 256690 MYRA 2 330 365 Sr. 365 Sr. 2 365 9211 526 5.71 11574 99 136 122 9536 545 4 287 4 365 10815 598 5.53 13296 94 126 113 9691 536 2 9. 269052 NANCY 2 3 160 280 365 J r . 305 Sr. 2 3 365 222 10682 8139 376 257 3 . 5 2 3.16 9913 7111 120 93 102 71 109 80 11709 8790 412 278 2 10.283920 ORCHID ' 2 214 365 Sr. 2 365 10488 454 4.33 11005 113 118 116 10858 470 1 LI.292516 PRIMROSE 2 192 365 Sr. 2 365 8946 426 4.76 9968 96 111 105 9262 441 1 L2. 292515 PRINCESS 2 171 365 J r . 2 ' 365 10662 443 4 . 1 5 10910 120 120 120 11688 486 1 • I CO o . O O' M O vO o I—I EH o B o CL, M O H B w CO H M ct; co EH pq EH Pm i-l 00 ro ON r-i OO CO <t IN OJ CM rO CM H vQ O CN sj- lr\ IN- vO O CN O ON CO CN Q sj-CN ON vO UN 00 OJ OJ ro ro vO CN ro r-i vO vO sr CM ro si-vO CN vO vO CO 00 r-i ^ o CN vO vO ON OO ro r-i CO CM UN IN- P vO CM vO vO UN O ^ ^ oQ CM rO CM ro OJ OJ ON 00 si- sj-vO CO CO CN vO IN CO vO r-i CO ro O r-i r-i ro O ON O O o IN-CN a w COPm COO H id"* s oo co HCE; co EHfx} OPH I-3 O H PU<< EH 0=SW Eh«M cilO I—I sj-CN r-1 vO UN 00 ON vO CO IN. OO vO CN vO ON IN UN sj-ON vO vO vO ON vO EH -<£ PH 1-1 UN OJ rO vQ ON si- O O ro CO UNrorOroHOO IN vO 00 vQ UN \Q ON ON CO vQ vOONvQvOvOvQ O 00 ON UN IN. 00 ro CN ro sj-vO vO O OJ ON 00 ro CN CO vO O O r-l tN H sf CN ON ON vQ vO «=SOM O ro O tN vO vO ro vO vO 9° UN 00 00 00 ON vO vO IN si- CM i—I UN vO vO UN ro iH ro UN vO 00 ON CM 00 9, o 00 ON O O tN r-l 00 vO 00 vO vO UN ON r-i ON UN CO vO IN- vO O vO ON vO O M • Eh O B o « a, EH PH 13 Pm ON CO o ro UN 00 vO CN IN. CN O rO vO H sj-ro ON O O ro 00 ON si-UN sr ro CN CN UN ro ro ro ro oo CN CM CM vO OJ 00 ON ro vO ro OJ Q rO sf vO OJ OJ UN CM rO s? 00 UN rO CM ro ro O OJ UN ro ro 00 s* OJ o ro 00 sj-OJ ON sf-r-i CN ON ON CM vO si-ON CO OO CO vO UN sj-O CN rO rO si-rO vO 00 CN vO va CO r-i ON ro rO ro ro oO oo vO CN CM CO H CN OO CM rH r-l CO o CO OO CN r-i ON sj-OO o OO ON CM vO r-i H ON ON CO CN vO ON CN CO vO 5N o IN CO fad <si MM UN vO OO sr OO CM CN CN OJ ON OO CM H CM CM CM UN UN vO OO OO OO UN UN O rH OO OO UN CM vO ON OO CM OO UN OO CM oo r-i vO OO sj-CM OJ hi O OJ OO UN .UN .UN UN UN UN vo jhvo mo o o o rOca ooca roUNrOvo rotNrooo OJ si-UN .UN .UN UN vO f-ivO U O vO roco rOr-a ooUNrOvO OJ ro UN .UN .UN .UN UN UN vO Fh O S4 O hvQ O O _ roi-a roco ooca oo^voonO roCN a CQ CO Q UN H CM CM o OJ OO I ro UN \o CO UN CO CM vO CM CM CN oo rH si-O CM UN \Q CM rO UN vQ S CO t3 a ct> m <H CD O T5 -P 14 C m CD CD <£ «H ,Q 6 bofi CO 0) P H stg CM 5 UNQ» vO O CM <U CM 1-3 • r-i OH CM g UNS vo <J} CM O CM t~3 • CM UNM HS UN H CO <tj O cd CM S ro U.B.C. ROSALINDS ADMIRAL Name of Dam and Registered Number AGE CLASS DAYS IN MILK PRODUCTION PRODUCTION EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE CLASS AVERAGE PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON A MATURE EQUIV. No. REC-ORDS. FAT FAT BASIS Yrs Days MILK FAT i FAT CORR. MILK MILK FAT GCRR. MILK MILK FAT 3 . 208515 HEATHER 8 9 - 3 0 5 8 3 0 5 9 258 214 6527 4 6 0 5 250 154 3 . 8 3 3 . 3 4 6361 4152 64 46 61 38 63 41 6540 4651 251 1 5 5 8 4 . 202515 GARDENIA 2 77 305 J r . 2 365 J r . 3 305 J r . 4 3 0 5 5 305 6 305 4847 197 4 . 0 6 4 8 9 4 - 67 65 66 6107 248 3 4 113 156 294 305 5528 8123 211 318 3 . 8 2 3 . 9 1 5376 8019 56 89 51 8 5 53 87 6247 8529 238 334 5 6 — 305 265 8280 6856 287 281 3 . 4 7 4 . 1 0 7617 6957 82 68 70 69 75 69 8545 6918 296 284 5 5. 155757 ROYAL BEL] E 2 2 3 5 305 Sr. 2 365 Sr. 3 305 5 3 0 5 6 305 7 365 8 305 9 365 10 305 754-6 283 3 . 7 4 7263 97 88 92 8980 337 3 235 365 8776 339 3 . 8 6 8595 85 80 82 8246 319 5 6 — 305 305 8740 12101 332 511 3 . 8 0 4 . 2 2 8476 12505 87 120 81 125 84 123 9020 12210 343 516 7 8 305 365 9611 12266 392 522 4 . 0 8 4 . 2 6 9724 12736 96 104 96 109 96 107 9611 10693 392 4 5 5 9 - 305 12600 497 3 . 9 4 12495 1 2 5 122 123 12726 502 10 0 365 11903 462 3 . 8 8 11691 100 96 98 10625 412 8 U.B C ROSALINDS ADMIRAL (3) Name of Dam and Registered Number AGE CLASS DAYS IN MILK PRODUCTION PRODUCTION EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE CLASS AVERAGE PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON A MATURE EQUIV. No. REC-FAT FAT BASIS ORDS. Yrs Days MILK FAT i FAT CORR. MILK MILK FAT GCRR. MILK MILK FAT > 6 . 208517 HATTIE 2 3 33 305 J r . 2 305 J r . 3 305 J r . 4 292 305 4362 5854 1 3 9 180 3.19 3 .07 3830 5042 60 72 46 5 3 51 60 5496 6615 1 7 5 203 4 122 221 5148 1 6 4 3.19 4 5 1 9 5 6 4 4 49 5405 172 3 7. 218126 ILLEEN 2 3 1 3 0 5 J r . 2 3 6 5 J r . 3 305 Sr. 4 305 6 6 1 4 260 3 . 9 3 6546 9 1 86 88 8334 328 3 3 6 317 5707 226 3 . 9 6 5 6 7 3 5 8 55 5 6 6256 247 4 2 4 5 291 5746 2 4 0 4 . 1 8 5898 5 9 61 60 5918 247 3 8. 130282 ARDGOWAN GLADNESS 3 4 232 3 6 5 Sr. 3 305 J r . 4 3 6 5 6 365 7 : 3 6 5 8 3 6 5 3 6 5 10 3 6 5 12 3 6 5 1 4 3 6 5 305 9720 11027 438 499 4 . 5 1 4 . 5 3 10458 II896 9 5 121 1 0 3 1 3 4 100 129 9 1 3 3 11578 4 1 1 524 6 mm 3 2 4 1 2 2 3 1 5 3 3 4 . 3 6 12887 103 111 108 10737 468 7 - 3 6 5 13493 5 7 9 4 . 2 9 1 4 0 8 2 1 1 4 121 118 11739 504 8 - 3 6 5 16133 675 4.18 16578 1 3 6 1 4 1 1 3 9 1 4 0 6 4 5 8 8 9 10 mm 308 3 6 5 1 1 8 4 3 13145 527 532 4.45 4 . 0 5 1 2 6 4 2 13238 100 111 110 111 106 111 1 0 4 0 6 1 1 7 3 3 463 475 12 1 4 -3 6 5 3 6 5 1 1 7 3 1 7610 452 2 9 4 3 . 8 5 3 .86 1 1 4 7 2 7454 9 9 64 94 61 96 6 2 1 1 0 4 3 7826 425 302 9 U.B.C. ROSALINDS ADMIRAL ( 4 ) Name of Dam And Registered AGE GLASS DAYS IN MILK PRODUCTION PRODUCTION EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE CLASS AVERAGE PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON ' A MATURE EQUIV. No. REC-Number FAT FAT BASIS ORDS. Yrs Days MILK FAT I FAT CORR. MILK MILK FAT GORR. MILK MILK FAT 9 . 218120 ISOBEL 2 24 365 J r . 305 J r . 365 J r . 2 342 6406 199 3 . 1 1 5547 72 54 61 7426 231 3 101 3 188 4181 108 2 . 5 8 3292 51 32 39 4 7 2 5 122 4 157 4 230 5882 190 3 . 2 3 5203 54 42 47 6176 200 3 10 .256689 MARGARET 2 192 365 Sr. 2 365 13368 4 8 5 3 . 6 3 12622 144 126 133 13840 502 1 1 1 . 2 3 6 4 0 8 KATHY 2 143 365 J r . 305 Sr. 305 Sr. 305 6 2 338 7751 309 3 . 9 9 7735 87 84 85 9083 362 3 269 3 207 5694 215 3 . 7 8 5503 65 60 62 6150 232 4 326 4 288 6650 263 3 . 9 5 6605 69 66 67 6850 271 6 - 231 6019 228 3 . 7 9 5828 60 56 57 6073 230 4 1 2 . 130269 LOCHINCH LASSIE 2 3 261 365 J r . 305 Sr. 365 5 305 6 365 8 305 9 2 3 335 305 8777 954-7 379 399 4 . 3 2 4 . 1 8 9196 9804 98 109 103 111 101 110 10395 10311 449 431 5 6 — 365 305 98'94 10294 440 421 4 . 4 5 4 . 0 9 10558 10433 84 102 92 103 88 103 8883 10387 395 4 2 5 8 - 365 10145 414 4 . 0 8 10268 86 86 86 8844 361 9 305 10608 406 3 . 8 3 10333 105 LOO 102 10714 410 U.B. C. ROSALINDS ADMIRAL ( Name of Dam And Registered Number AGE CLASS DAYS IN MILK Yrs Days PRODUCTION MILK FAT i FAT FAT CORR. MILK PRODUCTION EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE CLASS AVERAGE MILK FAT FAT CCRR. MILK PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON A MATURE EQUIV. BASIS No. REC-ORDS. MILK FAT 1 2 . 1 3 0 2 6 9 LOCHINCH LASSIE 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 305 10 365 11 365 12 365 13 365 14 305 16 305 17 305 18 365 19 305 365 365 365 365 305 305 305 309 10418 10824 10456 10900 9776 7656 8712 6972 4482 411 438 423 431 375 297 332 260 203 3 . 9 5 4 . 0 5 4 . 0 5 3 . 9 5 3.84 3 . 8 8 3.81 3 .73 4 . 5 3 10332 10900 10527 IO825 9 5 3 5 7517 8465 6689 4838 104 91 88 92 83 76 87 69 38 101 91 88 90 78 73 81 64 42 102 91 88 91 82 74 83 66 41 10689 9878 9843 10659 10053 9187 10454 8366 5324 422 400 398 421 385 356 398 312 241 1 5 U.B. C GOVERNORS SPITFIRE Name of Daughter & Registered AGE CLASS DAYS IN MILK PRODUCTION PRODUCTION EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE CLASS AVERAGE PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON A MATURE EQUIV. No. REC-ORDS Number FAT FAT BASIS Yrs Days MILK FAT I FAT CORR. MILK •MILK FAT GCRR. MILK MILK FAT 1. 269045 NANETTE 3 1 305 J r . 3 365 J r . 4 305 10172 395 3.88 9994 124 117 120 11494 446 4 7 365 9087 348 3.83 8855 83 78 80 8301 318 2 2. 269049 NAOMI 2 142 305 J r . 2 365 J r . 3 365 Sr. 4 305 7340 316 4.31 7676 101 105 103 9248 398 3 173 332 6825 309 4.53 7365 69 75 73 6709 304 4 2 2 5 365 10097 438 4.34 IO609 87 93 90 9048 392 3 3. 269048 NATALIE 2 168 305 J r . 2 365 Sr. 3 305 IO678 540 5.06 12371 147 179 166 13454 680 3 198 365 12773 606 4.75 14199 124 143 135 12002 569 2 4-. 269046 NELLIE 2 223 305 Sr. 2 365 Sr. 3 305 9176 333 3.63 8665 118 103 109 10919 396 3 2 5 5 365 8614 349 4 . 0 5 8681 84 82 83 8094 328 2 5. 269050 NETTIE 2 3 168 226 365 J r . 2 305 Sr. 3 365 305 7880 8740 327 352 4 . 1 5 4 . 0 3 8057 8776 88 100 89 98 89 98 8638 9439 358 380 2 s. 275663 NORA 2 3 179 196 305 J r . 2 365 Sr. 3 305 365 5959 5863 283 273 4.75 4.66 6629 6440 82 57 94 64 89 61 7508 5509 357 257 2 U.B.C. GOVERNORS SPITFIRE (2) Name of Daughter & Registered AGE CLASS DAYS IN MILK - PRODUCTION PRODUCTION EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE CLASS AVERAGE PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON A MATURE EQUIV. No. REC-ORDS. Number FAT FAT BASIS Yrs Days MILK FAT % FAT CORR. MILK MILK FAT CCRR. MILK MILK FAT 7 . 283916 OCTAVIA 2 177 365 J r . 2 365 12968 572 4.41 13767 145 155 151 14216 627 1 8 . 275667 ONA 2 199 3 6 5 Sr. 2 365 11180 439 3 . 9 3 11057 120 114 116 11574 454 L 9 . 275670 OMEGA 2 257 365 Sr. 2 365 8979 421 4 . 6 8 9907 96 109 104 10685 436 1 1 0 . 2 7 5 6 6 6 OLIVE 3 57 3 6 5 J r . 3 365 10727 375 3 . 5 0 9916 108 91 98 10546 372 I 1 1 . 2 9 2 5 1 3 OLIVIA 2 160 3 6 5 J r . 2 365 8406 329 3 . 9 1 8297 94 89 91 9 2 1 5 361 1 1 2 . 2 8 3 9 1 9 OPHELIA 2 126 3 6 5 J r . 2 365 9001 441 4 . 9 0 10215 101 120 112 9867 483 1 1 3 . 2 7 5 6 6 5 OLGA 3 273 305 J r . 3 305 9290 379 4 . 0 7 9401 114 112 113 10498 428 1 U.B.C. GOVERNORS SPITFIRE Name of Dam and Registered AGE CLASS DAYS IN MILK PRODUCTION PRODUCTION EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE CLASS AVERAGE PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON A MATURE EQUIV. No. REC-ORDS. Number FAT FAT BASIS Yrs Days MILK FAT i FAT CORR. MILK MILK FAT GORR. MILK MILK FAT 1. 226520 JOANNE 2 4 2 8 5 6 365 Sr. 2 365 J r . 4 305 365 6 365 335 8349 9008 345 402 4 . 1 3 4 . 4 6 8515 9633 90 82 90 90 90 87 8643 8721 357 389 5 6 305 315 8381 7937 338 3 2 5 4 . 0 3 4 . 0 9 8422 8050 83 67 83 68 83-67 8849 7848 349 321 4 2 . 218119 ISLAY 2 156 305 •Jr. 2 305 J r . 3 305 J r . 4 287 6074 244 4 . 0 2 6090 83 81 82 7653 307 3 4 165 157 243 230 5670 5390 212 257 3 . 7 4 4 . 7 7 5448 6011 69 59 63 69 65 65 6407 5660 240 270 3 3e 236406 JEZEBEL 2 39 365 J r . 2 365 Sr. 3 365 Sr. 4 365 8844 337 3 . 8 1 8593 99 91 94 9695 369 3 240 365 6342 241 3 . 8 6152 62 57 59 5959 226 4 195 365 5498 198 3 . 6 5169 48 42 44 4927 177 3 4 . 226 523 JOYCE 2 357 365 Sr. 2 3 0 5 J r . 4 365 5 3 0 5 6 305 7 354 9 5 9 5 287 2 . 9 9 8143 103 75 86 10276 307 4 28 273 7652 262 3.42 6991 84 70 76 8035 2 7 5 5 6 7 -306 295 242 9897 9560 7008 321 374 234 3.24 3 . 9 1 3 . 3 4 8774 9434 6313 84 9 5 70 67 92 57 73 93 62 10112 96'46 7008 328 377 234 u. B.C. GOVERNORS SPITFIRE .(21 Name of Dan and Registered Number 1 AGE CLASS DAYS IN MILK PRODUCTION PRODUCTION EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE CLASS AVERAGE PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON A MATURE EQUIV. No. REC-ORDS. FAT FAT BASIS Yrs Days MILK FAT % FAT CORR. MILK MILK FAT GORR. MILK MILK FAT 4 . 226523 SOYCE 8 mm 365 8 364 10419 3 5 5 3 . 4 ] 9493" 88 74 80 9083 309 6 5. 202515 GARDENIA 2 77 3 0 5 J r . 2 3 6 5 J r . 3 305 J r . 4 305 5 305 6 3 0 5 4847 197 4 . 0 * 4894 67 6 5 66 6107 248 -3 4 113 156 294 305 5528 8123 211 318 3.82 3.93 5376 8019 56 89 51 8 5 53 87 6247 8529 238 334 5 - 305 8280 287 3.45 7617 82 70 75 8545 296 6 - 2 6 5 6856 281 4 . 1 0 6957 68 69 69 6918 284 5 6 . 218118 IONA 2 56 3 6 5 J r . 2 305 J r . 3 305 5 365 6 3 6 5 7 365 8 365 8119 328 4.04 8168 91 89 90 8900 360 3 - 220 4812 178 3 . 7 0 4595 59 53 55 5438 201 5 6 •* 230 345 5922 9191 256 354 4 . 3 2 3 . 8 5 6209 8986 59 78 63 74 61 75 6112 8532 264 329 7 - 335 8580 349 4 . 0 7 8667 72 73 73 8065 328 8 - 337 9052 363 4 . 0 1 9066 76 76 76 8435 338 6 7 . 236405 JEMIMA 3 110 305 J r . 3 305 J r . 4 3 0 5 5 263 7034 303 4.31 7359 86 90 88 7948 342 4 5 115 187 244 6034 7971 254 387 4 . 2 1 4 . 8 6 6224 8993 66 79 68 9 5 67 89 6336 8226 267 399 3 U.B.C. GOVERNORS SPITFIRE (3) Name of Dan and Registered AGE CLASS DAYS IN MILK PRODUCTION PRODUCTION EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE CLASS AVERAGE PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON A MATURE EQUIV. No. REC-Number FAT FAT BASIS ORDS. Yrs Days MILK FAT i FAT BS8" MILK FAT GCRR. MILK MILK FAT 8. 226520 JOANNE 2 285 365 Sr. 2 3 6 5 J r . 4 305 3 6 5 6 365 834-9 34-5 4 . 1 : 8515 90 90 90 8643 357 4 5 6 6 MM 335 305 315 9008 8381 7937 402 338 3 2 5 4 .46 4.03 4.09 9633 8422 8050 82 83 67 90 83 68 87 83 67 8721 8649 7848 389 349 321 4 9. 130269 LOCH INCH LASSIE 2 3 261 365 J r . 2 3 0 5 Sr. 3 365 5 3 0 5 6 365 8 3 0 5 9 3 0 5 10 365 11 365 12 365 13 3 6 5 JL4 3 0 5 16 335 •305 8777 954-7 379 399 4 . 3 2 4 .16 9196 9804 98 109 103 111 101 110 10395 10311 449 431 5 6 — 365 305 9894 10294-440 421 4.45 4 . 0 9 10558 10433 84 102 92 103 88 103 8883 10387 395 4 2 5 8 9 mm 365 305 10145 IO608 414 406 4 . 0 8 3 . 83 10268 10333 86 1 0 5 86 100 86 102 8844 10714 361 410 10 305 10418 411 3 .95 10332 104 101 102 10689 422 11 mm 365 10824 438 4 . 0 5 10900 91 91 9878 400 12 - 365 10456 423 4 . 0 5 10527 88 88 88 9843 398 13 mm 365 10900 431 3 . 95 10825 92 90 91 10659 421 14 - 365 9776 375 3 . 84 9535 83 78 82 10053 3 8 5 16 — 305 7656 297 3 .88 7517 " 76 73 74 9187 356 U..B.C. GOVERNORS SPTEFTBEr C4) Name of Dam and Registered AGE CLASS DAYS IN MILK PRODUCTION PRODUCTION EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE GLASS AVERAGE PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON A MATURE EQUIV. No. REC-ORDS. Number FAT FAT BASIS Yrs Days MILK FAT l FAT ' CORR. MILK MILK FAT GCRR. MILK MILK FAT 9 . 130269 LOCHINCH LASSIE 17 18 - 3 0 5 17 305 18 365 19 365 Sr. 2 365 Sr. 3 305 305 8712 6972 332 260 3 .81 3 .73 8465 6689 87 69 81 64 83 66 10454 8366 398 312 • 10.JUANITA 19 2 250 309 356 4482 7550 203 275 4 . 53 3 .64 4838 7145 38 81 42 71 41 75 5324 7996 241 291 15 3 32e 348 8441 320 3 .79 8176 82 75 78 8296 314 2 1 1 . MOIRA 2 327 365 Sr. 2 305 J r . 4 3 0 5 5 3 6 5 Sr. 2 3 0 5 Sr. 3 3 0 5 Sr. 4 305 5 365 8922 367 4 . 11 9074 96 95 96 9237 379 4 47 211 5978 261 4 . 3 7 6306 66 70 68 6277 274 5 293 8532 386 4 . 5 2 9203 85 9 5 91 8805 398 3 12.MARIGOLD 2 2 2 5 365 8323 318 3 . 8 2 8099 89 83 85 8617 329 3 263 229 5613 269 4 . 7 9 6280 64 75 70 6062 291 4 5 310 244 228 6885 7299 271 294 3 . 9 3 4 . 0 3 6819 7330 71 73 68 73 70 72 7092 7533 279 303 4 13 . 226524 JACQUELINE 2 2 1 5 365 Sr. 2 365 Sr. 3 3 0 5 5 305 6 365 7149 278 3 . 8 9 7030 77 72 74 7401 288 • 3 320 234 6089 262 4 . 3 0 6366 59 62 61 6576 283 5 6 -277 239 8789 7382 338 269 3 .85 3 .64 8586 6988 ®7 73 83 66 85 69 9070 7448 349 271 U.B.C. GOVERNORS SPITFIRE (5) Name of Dam and Registered Number AGE CLASS DAYS IN MILK PRODUCTION PRODUCTION EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE CLASS AVERAGE PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON A MATURE EQUIV. No. REC-ORDS. FAT FAT BASIS Yrs Days MILK FAT i FAT CORR. MILK •MILK FAT GCRR. MILK MILK FAT 13. 226524 JACQUELINE 7 305 7 305 8 221 6366 240 3.77 6146 63 59 61 6366 240 8 210 6454 263 4.07 6527 64 64 64 6467 264 6 U.B.C. WHITE COCKADE Name of Daughter & Registered Number AGE Yrs Days GLASS DAYS IN MILK PRODUCTION MILK FAT % FAT FAT CORR. MILK PRODUCTION EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE CLASS AVERAGE MILK FAT FAT GORR. MILK PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON A MATURE EQUIV. BASIS No. REC-ORDS. MILK FAT. 1. 292519 PAMELA 2 . 292518 PRECIOUS 3 . 292517 PENELOPE 4. 298432 • PATRICIA 5. 307555 QUAKER 6 . 307552 QUEST 2 2 2 2 2 2 92 233 231 240 60 150 365 J r . 2 365 Sr. 2 365 Sr. 2 305 Sr. 2 305 J r . 2 305 J r . 2 365 365 365 305 305 305 12102 9993 11883 10091 8835 8520 516 4 3 5 486 .434 389 409 4 . 2 6 12581 4 . 3 5 10522 4 . 0 9 430 4.40 4 . 8 0 12043 10546 9369 9543 136 107 128 130 121 117 140 113 126 13'5 129 135 138 111 127 133 126 128 13266 10346 12302 12008 11132 10735 566 450 503 516 490 515 it Records i n process of be i n * mads, an a f i n a l production figures ostimated* U.B.C WHITE COCKADE Name of Dam and Registered AGE CLASS DAYS IN MILK PRODUCTION PRODUCTION EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE CLASS AVERAGE PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON A MATURE EQUIV. No. REC-Number FAT FAT BASIS ' ORDS. Yrs Days MILK FAT i FAT CORR. MILK MILK FAT GCRR. MILK MILK FAT 1. 226526 JANICE 2 155 365 J r . 2 3 6 5 Sr. 3 365 Sr. 4 305 5 305 6 305 7 365 7849 313 3 . 9 9 7835 88 85 86 8604 343 3 228 306 9432 379 4 . 0 2 94^8 92 89 90 10085 4 0 5 4 2 9 5 324 9522 393 4 . 1 3 9704 82 83 83 9415 389 5 - 292 9536 381 4 . 0 0 9529 9 5 93 94 9841 393 6 7 mm 272 242 7718 6731 325 2 3 5 4 . 2 1 3 . 4 9 7962 6217 77 67 80 58 79 61 7787 6731 328 2 3 5 6 ' 2 . 246802 LENORA 2 3 4 170 181 206 365 J r . 2 305 J r . 3 Sr. 4 365 5 304 271 308 8793 8660 9889 340 352 392 3 . 8 7 4 . 0 6 3 . 9 6 8617 8744 9836 99 106 86 92 104 83 9 5 105 84 11079 9786 10084 428 398 400 5 - 359 11517 457 3 . 9 7 11462 97 9 5 96 10578 420 4 3 . 256690 MYRA 2 330 365 Sr. 2 365 Sr. 4 365 9211 526 5 .71 11574 99 136 122 9536 545 4 287 365 10815 598 5 .53 13296 94 126 113 9691 536 2 4-. 218118 IONA 2 3 1 56 365 J r . 2 305 J r . 3 305 5 365 220 2 3 0 8119 4812 5922 328 178 256 4.04 3 . 7 0 4 . 3 2 8168 4 5 9 5 6209 — 91 59 "59—-89 53 63 90 55 61 8900 5438 6112 360 201 264 U.B.C. WHITE COCKADE (2 ) Name of Dam and Registered Number AGE Yrs Days CLASS DAYS IN MILK PRODUCTION MILK FAT t FAT FAT CORR. MILK PRODUCTION EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE CLASS AVERAGE MILK FAT FAT GCRR. MILK PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON A MATURE EQQIV. BASIS No. REC-ORDS. MILK FAT 4 . 218118 IONA 5. 236408 KATHY 6 . 246797 LOIS 6 7 8 2 3 4 6 •2 3 4 143 269 326 144 242 267 365 6 365 7 365 8 365 J r . 2 305 Sr. 3 3 0 5 Sr. 4 305 6 365 J r . 2 305 Sr. 3 365 Sr. 4 34'5 335 337 338 207 288 231 365 294 309 9191 8580 9052 7751 5694 6650 6019 7786 7168 5992 354 349 363 309 215 263 228 340 347 268 3 . 8 5 4 . 0 7 4 . 0 1 3 . 9 9 3 . 7 8 3 . 9 5 3 . 7 9 4 . 3 7 4 . 8 4 4 , 4 7 8986 8667 9066 7735 5503 6605 5828 8214 8072 6417 78 72 76 87 65 68 60 87 82 52 74 73 76 84 60 66 56 92 96 57 75 73 76 85 62 67 57 90 91 55 8532 8065 8435 9083 6150 6850 6073 8535 7741 6110 329 328 338 362 232 271 230 373 375 273 DAUGHTER - DAM COMPARISONS OF THREE U.B.C. "AYRSHIR¥"BULLS DAUGHTERS DAMS DIFFERENCE No. No. " Percentage System Milk Fat F.C.M. Records Records Milk Fat F.C.M. Milk ' Fat E.C A l l Records 102 106 104 20 64 79 77 78 23 29 26 S p i t f i r e 1st Records 111 114 112 13 13 89 84 86 22 30 26 Admiral A l l Records 92 95 94 23 69 83 80 82 9 15 12 1st Records 105 108 107 12 12 88 82 84 17 26 23 White A l l R cords 123 130 127 6 25 81 83 82 42 47 4-5 Cockade 1st Records 123 130 127 6 6 92 96 95 31 34 32 Mature Equivalence S p i t f i r e A l l records 9848 417 20 64 8184 326 1664 91 1st Records 10605 446 13 13 8578 337 2027 109 Admiral A l l Records 8960 381 23 69 8626 339 334 42 1st Records 10099 430 12 12 8476 329 1623 101 White A l l Records 11632 507 6 25 8370 350 3262 157 Sockade 1st Records 11632 507 6 6 9290 402 2342 105 SIRE INDEXES OF THREE U.B.C AYRSHIRE BULLS The indexes of the three U.B.C. Ayrshire B u l l s , namely S p i t f i r e , Admir-a l and White Cockade were calculated on a percentage and mature equiva-lent basis. The equal parent index was used. PERCENTAGE BASIS MATURE EQUIVALENCE INDEX FROM PERCENTAGES Milk Fat F.C.M. Milk Fat Milk Fat A l l Records 125 135 130 11512 508 12531 549 S p i t f i r e 12632 586 i 1 s t Records 133 144 133 555 13333 A l l Records 101 110 106 9294 423 10125 448 Admiral 1 s t Records 122 134 130 11722 531 12231 545 finite-All Records 1 6 5 177 172 14894 664 16541 720 ^ockade 1 s t Records 154 164 159 13974 612 15439 667 > •1 J DISCUSSION OF THE THREE UgYSSEY SIRE INDEXES The indexes of the bulls rate in the following ascending order, Admiral, Spitfire and White Cockade. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INDEXES CALCULATED OFF ALL RECORDS AND FIRST RECORDS ONLY The f i r s t records indexes of Admiral and Spitfire are higher than the a l l records indexes. While with White Cockade, the fi r s t records index is lower than the a l l records index. SPITFIRE: The daughters of Spitfire show a ratio of 1:1*54 for number of f i r s t records to number of a l l records, and a drop of 8$ E . C.M. between the average f i r s t records production and the average a l l records production. The dams of the daughters sired by Spitfire, show a ratio of 1:4*92 for number of f i r s t records, and a drop of 8$ F.C.M. between the average f i r s t records production and the average a l l records production, ADMIRAL: The daughters of Admiral show a ratio of 1:1*92 for number of f i r s t records to number of a l l records, and a drop of 13% F. C.M. between the average f i r s t records production and the average a l l records production.. The dams of the daughters sired by Admiral, show a ratio of 1:5.75 for number of f i r s t records to number of a l l records, and a drop of 2% F.C.M. between the average f i r s t records production and the average a l l records production. WHITE CQQKADE: The daughters of White Cockade have only made or are making their f i r s t record, therefore there is a ratio of 1:1 for number of f i r s t records to number of a l l records. The dams of the daughters sired by White Cockade, show a ratio of 1:4;17 for number of f i r s t records to number of a l l records, and a drop of ±3% F.C.M. between the average f i r s t records production and the average a l l records production. THE SIRE INDEXES; The two sires, whose daughters show a ratio equal to or greater than 1:1*54 for number of f i r s t records to number of a l l records, have a lower a l l records index than f i r s t records index. The sire, whose daughters have only made or are making their f i r s t records, has a higher a l l records index than f i r s t records index. RELATIVE MERITS OF ALL RECORDS INDEXES AND FIRST  RECORDS INDEXES . The author wishes to point out that indexes cal-culated from a l l available records can claim a greater degree of representation of the facts as they exist than can indexes calculated from the use of f i r s t records only. The greater the number of records made by dams and daughters, the longer will be the exposure to the vicissitudes of environment and disease, which will have some effect on their percentage production. Where a l l records are used to calculate a sire index, there will always be more records made by the dams than the daughters. Thus there will be a greater chance for the effect of environment and disease on the records of the dams, than on those of the daughters. Where only f i r s t records are used, the records of both dams and daughters will be exposed more equally in time, to the effects of environment and disease. The end result is that a l l records indexes will tend to be lower than f i r s t records indexes, with one type of exception as illustrated in the case of White Cockade. Where a sire has daughters who have made or are making only their f i r s t lactation, the a l l records index can be expected to be greater than the f i r s t records index, the reason being that there will be more chance for a greater difference in dam-daughter comparisons, when a l l the records of the dams are used. The author takes the view that in a l l cases where the daughters of a sire have made an average of more than 1 . 5 to 2 lactations each, i t is more reliable to calculate the sire index using a l l records. However, in the case of a sire, whose daughters have made or are making only their f i r s t lactations, i t is more reliable to calculate the sire index using f i r s t records only. Nevertheless i t must be expected that this index will be reduced to some extent when more records are made by the daughters. As in the case of White Cockade i t can be expected that his index will be reduced to some extent when his daughters make more records. The author is of the opinion that there is much scope for future work on this important subject of indexes based on dif-ferent numbers of dam-daughter records; and especially on developing a system for accurately estimating the index of young sires, whose daughters are in theprocess of making their f i r s t lactation. THE THREE UBYSSEY SIRE INDEXES CALCULATED ON A MATURE  EQUIVALENT BASIS The indexes of Admiral, Spitfire, and White Cockade, calculated on the Mature Equivalent basis, show a similar trend to those calculated on the percentage basis. The Mature Equivalent indexes can be directly com-pared one with the other. However, the Mature Equivalent indexes took slightly longer to calculate, and in the opinion of the author, are not as simple to understand or as easy to remember as the percentage indexes. VIII. AYRSHIRE HERD TEST PLAN writing in the January 1949 issue of the Canadian Ayrshire Review, the editor outlines the past and present aspects of an Ayrshire Herd Test Plan. Many Executive Committees of the Association have from time to time recommended the adoption of an Ayrshire Herd Test Plan. This recommendation has been unanimously approved in principle by successive Boards of Directors and Annual Meetings of the Association. How-ever, i t did not find practical application, because the Department of Agriculture f e l t that a l l rules and regulations governing R.O.P. should be formulated as a result of joint co-operation between a l l dairy breeds con-cerned, and the other dairy breeds have not been willing to institute a Herd Test Plan as desired by the Ayrshire Breed. The editor goes on to point out that since these early recommendations, the Ayrshire Breeders have recently renewed their request coupled with the intention of instituting approved Sire and Dam plans. The Department of Agriculture has now given favourable consideration to the establishment of a Herd Test Plan for Ayrshi^es, in view of its necessity for the institution of approved Sire and Dam Plans. The editor concludes by regretting that f u l l details of the regulations are not yet available, but the following main features are known: 1. A l l cows and heifers must be put on test as they freshen each year, with but three exceptions: cows twelve years old or over nurse cowsj cows which have lost two or more quarters, 2. Whilst the ©w&er may maintain "stable sheets" for his own information, these will not fee taken into consideration when comr-puting the records of a cow on test. The production of milk credited to a cow will be computed by multiplying the average of the weights taken by inspectors at time of their visits, by the number of days on test. Similar treatment will be given to fat tests. 5. On this Herd Test Plan, a l l that the Ayrshire breeder will be required to f i l e will be the initial, l i s t of eligible animals in the herd. Subsequent addition to the l i s t will b e added by the inspector at the time of each v i s i t . The owner will not now be re-quired to f i l e any other statement of monthly or annual reports. 4. This new Plan will probably become effective as from 1st May 1949. PROPOSED APPROVED SIRE PIAN FOR CANADIAN AYRSHIRES Joubert outlines the main features of the proposed approved Sire Plan as follows: 1. The record of every daughter that was ever milked in the herd, while that herd was enrolled in the Ayrshire R.O.P. test, must be included in this study. 2. First lactation records shall be used as the basis of a l l approved Sire studies. However, i f a Sire fail s to qualify on the basis of f i r s t lactations, upon request a second study will be made using the average of a l l records of each tested daughter and her dam. 3. Incomplete lactation records shall be computed to 305 days in length, and shall be included in the average of the daughters. However, no sire shall be considered for approval unless at least 70 percent of the tested daughters have complete records. 4. A l l records used in studying sires for "approval" shall be converted to a twice-a-day milking, mature equivalent, 305 day lactation basis. 5. No sire shall be considered unless a miBiisruii of 50 percent of his registered daughters, of three years of age or older, have been under test. 6. A complete sample of the dam-daughter combinations must be considered. A sire must have at least ten daughters forming dam-daughter combinations in order to be eligible for consideration. QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL 1. FOR SIRES; A sire must have a Regression Index of not less than 8,500 lbs. of milk and 340 lbs. of fat for approval. The Regression Index is the mid-point between the Equal Parent Index and the breed average. 2. FOR HIS DAUGHTERS: (a) Group Requirements; - The group of a l l the daughters of a sire, as well as the group of a l l the daughters included in dam-daughter combinations, must have given an average of 9,000 lbs. of milk and 360 lbs. of fat, with a fat test of not lower than 3.9 percent; or else they must have given an average of 10,000 lbs. of milk and 400 lbs. of fat. (b) Individual Requirements; - At least 60 percent of the daughters of an approved sire must have given each 9,000 lbs. of milk, or else at least 60 percent must have given each 360 lbs. of fat. CLASSIFICATION OF AYRSHIRE COWS ON PERFORMANCE f JSubert points out that there is a classification plan for type, which rates cows in the following categories: Jaubert goes on to express the view, that i t would be of advantage to the breeder to have cows similarly classified on a performance basis. Further i t would be rendering a great service to the individual breeder to give a complete classification of cows on the f o l -lowing main factors: - Type, milk production, fat production, persistency and breeding ability. Such complete information would provide f u l l op-portunity to the breeder to practice selection and formulate a breeding program to best advantage. f J«ubert suggests that a l l the statistical informa-tion accumulated by the Ayrshire Breeders Association over many years of testing, should be used to formulate a scale of classification for the factors above mentioned. Assuming that individual records are expressed as a percentage of the age-lactation period class average, the following measures could be taken to set up scales for classification. CATEGORIES SCORE Excellent V gry Good Good Plus Good Fair Poor MILK PRODUCTION: Al l accumulated data should be represented graphical-ly as follows; ABSCISSA: - Pounds of milk produced or milk production as percent of age-lactation period class average. /of ORDINATE: - Number of cows. The resulting curve could be sectioned uniformly, so as to establish grades of classification. FAT PRODUCTION: A similar procedure could be used for fat production (weight) and also percentage of fat in milk. PERSISTENCY: Persistency of production in a given lactation could be assessed by considering the last three months of production as a per-centage of the total lactation yield. The author takes the view that persistency in terras of number of lactation periods in the lifetime of a cow, is of much importance. Grades of classification on number of lactations in a l i f e -time could be established, and reported on together with the lifetime production of the cow. BREEDING ABILITY; Classifications could be based on fac i l i t y or difficulty to breed, based on the number of days between calvings for a given number of calvings. INCOMPLETE RECORDS The author takes the view that a l l incomplete records should be reported, and the cause of incompletion stated in each case. The Ayrshire Breeders Association should use a l l accumulated data to formulate factors, which may be applied to incomplete records, so as to indicate what they would have been, had they been carried to completion. The certificate of performance of each incomplete record should carry three main items;-1. Production up to time of incompletion. 2. Calculated production i f record had been completed. 3. Cause of incompletion. In each case the R.O.P. Inspector should certify the cause of incompletion, when the owner reports the record to R.O.P. head-quarters . In the annual R.O.P. reports and also the monthly Ayrshire Review, the calculated production i f record had been completed should be reported, but against each record a certain sign or letter must be inserted denoting the cause of incompletion. "7 1X7 RECOMMENDAT IONS 1. Every e f f o r t should be made to stimulate Interest i n , and i n -crease membership i n the Ayrshire Breeders Association, 2. A larger Central O f f i c e , f u l l y equipped with modern I.B.M. machines, be i n s t i t u t e d as soon as conditions permit. 3. Every e f f o r t should be made to encourage Ayrshire Breeders to enter t h e i r herds on the Ayrshire R.O.P. Herd Test Plan, so as to make the R.O.P. records more representative of the popula-t i o n of Ayrshires i n Canada, 4. In computing s t a t i s t i c s of the Ayrshire Breed, a l l the records of a l l cows on test should be used, including incomplete records (corrected to completion) i n cases where no previously complete records are available for the cow, 5. The modified method of reporting records as a percentage of the appropriate age - l a c t a t i o n period class average, should be brought to the attention of the Executive, Board of Directors and the Annual General Meeting of the Ayrshire Breeders Assoc i -ation. The subject should also receive some p u b l i c i t y i n the press and Breed Magazine. 6. If i t were decided to i n s t i t u t e t h i s modified system the follow-ing approach should be taken:-(a) The present a r b i t r a r y scale f o r q u a l i f i c a t i o n should no longer be used to d i s t i n g u i s h between a " q u a l i f y i n g " and a "non-qualifying!! cow. And the record of each cow should be given equal consideration. (b) Five year moving averages f o r age - l a c t a t i o n period classes should be established. (c) Individual records should be expressed as a percentage of /o8 the l a t e s t f i v e year average, (d) In reporting records they should be grouped according to age and l a c t a t i o n period length, and a l l the a l l i e d data should be presented as i s now customary, except that "percentage production of the average" should replace the present "production required" column, (3) The records should be grouped under the name of the farm concerned. The farms should be l i s t e d alphabetically, (f) Under each farm, the records should be grouped as f o r daugh-ters under the s i r e concerned, 7, The Proposed Approved Sire Plan should be i n s t i t u t e d , and s p e c i a l annual publications should be made on s i r e indexes, and interim reports should be made i n the monthly breed magazine, 8, A system f o r quickly and accurately estimating the index; of young s i r e s , with a minimum of f i v e daughters i n the l a t t e r h a l f of t h e i r f i r s t l a c t a t i o n , should be developed, 9, Consideration should be given by the appropriate authorities to ifoubert's suggestion for developing grades of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of • Ayrshires to p a r a l l e l as i t were the present system of type c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . XT SUMMARY 1. A total of 16136 R.O.P. qualifying records of Canadian Ayrshire cows, for the period 194-1 to 1946 inclusive, were studied. It was hoped to include the non-qualifying records in this study, but the Ayrshire Breeders Association declined to release these figures. 2. Age - lactation period classes were set up as follows:-Immature Classes Jr. 2 ( 3 0 5 days); Sr. 2 ( 3 0 5 days); Jr. 2 ( 365 days); Sr.2 ( 3 6 5 days), Jr. 3 ( 3 0 5 days)j Sr. 3 ( 3 0 5 days); Jr. 3 ( 3 6 5 days); Sr.3 " Jr. 4 (305 days); Sr. 4 ( 3 0 5 days); Jr. 4 ( 3 6 5 days); Sr. 4 » Mature Classes Mature ( 305 days); Mature ( 365 days). These fourteen main classes were used in a l l related calculations. The mature classes were also further broken down into sep-arate years, but none of these were individually used in any calculations. 3. Two five year averages of qualifying records were calculated for each of the fourteen main classes, for the periods 1941 to 1945 inclusive, and 1942 to 1946 inclusive. 4. A total of 1400 records were made by cows on 3 x a day milking for part of their lactation. These records were corrected to .2 x a day milking basis by an appropriate correction curve. 5. The five year averages were calculated without correction for 3 x a day milking, and with correction for 3 x a day milking. A test of significance between these two sets of figures, showed that there was no significant different, due to the quantity of 3 x a day milking records for the 1941 to 1946 period. fro 6 . The f i v e year averages calculated from the 2 x a day records and corrected 3 x a day records were used i n a l l related c a l c u l -ations. 7. There were small differences between the two f i v e year averages. The differences expressed as a percentage of the f i r s t average, showed a range over the fourteen classes of from 0 . 0 2 $ to 0 . 9 5 $ f o r milk, and 0.21$ to 0.67$ f o r f a t . 8. Differences between corresponding class averages f o r 365 day and 305 day periods, f o r the years 1942 to 1946 i n c l u s i v e , were expressed graphically. These differences range from 14.82$ to 18.34$ f o r milk, and 1 5 . 0 6 $ to 18 . 16$ f o r f a t . 9. Dam - daughter comparisons were made for three University of B.C. Ayrshire S i r e s . The i n d i v i d u a l records of the dams and daughters, were calculated as a percentage of the appropriate f i v e year class average f o r 1942 to 1946 i n c l u s i v e . Equal parent indexes of these s i r e s were calculated from these per-centages. Individual records were also corrected to mature equivalence by the use of conversion factors developed at Iowa State College, and equal parent indexes were calculated on a mature equivalent basis. 10. The;indexes calculated by these two methods, showed s i m i l a r trends placing as follows i n ascending order: Admiral, SpLtfire, White Cockade. In a l l cases the percentage index showed a higher figure than the M.E. index, 11. These indexes were calculated using a l l records available to date, and also by using only f i r s t records made by daughters and dams. 12. The two s i r e s , Admiral and S p i t f i r e , showed a lower a l l records index than f i r s t records index. The daughters of these two /// s i r e s had made on the average at le a s t 1.54 records each. 13. White Cockade, whose daughters were making or had just com-pleted only t h e i r f i r s t l a c t a t i o n , showed a lower f i r s t records index than a l l records index. 14. This 'data i s too li m i t e d to j u s t i f y any general conclusions. However, on the basis of the three s i r e s studied, i t seems ad-visable to consider the a l l records index i n cases of s i r e s whose daughters have made an average of 1.5 records each or more. However, i n the case of a young s i r e whose daughters are making t h e i r f i r s t l a c t a t i o n , i t would be more accurate to con-sider the f i r s t records index. This f i r s t records index i f very high or very low must be expected to regress towards to breed average as the daughters make more records. 15« A suggested scheme fo r using a l l the accumulated Ayrshire s t a t -i s t i c s , so as to set up grades of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r Ayrshires on the following main factors i s outlined: Milk production, f a t production, persistency, and breeding a b i l i t y . 16. A l l incomplete records should be reported to R.O.P. headquarters together with the c e r t i f i e d cause of Incompletion. 17. It i s expected that a Herd Test Plan w i l l be i n s t i t u t e d f o r R.O.P. Ayrshires i n Canada commencing May 1st, 1949. The main feature of t h i s plan i s that i t w i l l be made compulsory that a l l cows i n an Ayrshire herd, registered on R.O.P., must be tested and a l l these records reported to R.O.P. Headquarters at Ottawa. 18. The main features of the Proposed Approved Sire Plan f o r Ayr-shires i n Canada are stated. (a) The record of every daughter that has ever been milked i n the herd, while that herd has been enrolled i n the Ayr-shire R.O.P. System must be included i n the study, regard-l e s s of ownership. (b) F i r s t l a c t a t i o n records s h a l l be used as the basis of a l l Approved Sire studies. (c) A s i r e must have at l e a s t ten daughters forming dam - daugh-ter combinations, i n order to be e l i g i b l e f o r Approval. Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s Required The Regression Index of a s i r e that can q u a l i f y f o r approval s h a l l not be l e s s than 8,500 l b s . of milk and 340 l b s . of f a t . In order to q u a l i f y a s i r e does not have to meet any sp e c i a l f a t test requirements. 19. The present method of reporting record of performance i n Cana-dian Ayrshire c a t t l e i s serving a useful purpose. However, i n view of recent advances made i n the science of genetics, and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to animal breeding, i t i s impor-tant that some modification of the present system be i n s t i t u t e d . This modification should provide more complete, simple, and read i l y applicable information. Such a service would a i d the individual dairy farmer to practise more c a r e f u l s e l e c t i o n , and formulate a more successful breeding program. 20. The present method of reporting record of performance i n United States Ayrshire c a t t l e , makes use of mature equivalence. This system has been used successfully f o r many years and has proven merit. 21. The suggested modified system, gives more complete and d i r e c t l y comparable information than the present system. It i s also //3 reasonable to claim that i t i s more simple to understand and yet as complete as the Mature Equivalence method, and i t avoids the use of conversion f a c t o r s . Correction for *3x "a" Da'y Milking Report No. 33. Year 1941 Cows Milked on 3x basis Part, % Total Milk pro-duced on 3 X Milking TOTAL PRODUCTION of cows on 3X Basis ACTUAL PRODUCTION due to 3X Milkings TOTAL DAYS LACTATION! DAYS ACTUALLY ON 3 X MILKING MilkMbs Fat lbs l i l k lbs Fat lbs % Fat DAYS MILKED 3 X as %• Total Days No. COWE 9 6 10 10 10 9 12 13 1 2 . 5 12 12 8 1 0 . 5 9 . 5 9 1 3 . 5 139069 57177 153643 152099 202322 307469 64043 99953 116662 124378 215263 281539 227957 199042 109330 95983 5522 2332 6325 6165 8192 12764 2$73 4026 4627 4928 8316 11311 9428 8148 4-375 3378 12 516 3442 15364 15209 20232 27672 7685 12993 14582 14925 25831 22523 23935 18909 9839 12958 J r . 4 (305) 497 Sr. 4 140 ^ 3 3 Sr. 3 3 I 6 ~ ^ J r . 2 "S19 Sr. ,2 114-8 J r . 4 . 3 . 9 7 iM51 4.06 1W 4 . 1 2 (3051 4 . 0 5 D o l l 4 . 0 5 taaa 320 Sr, 4-3 2 4 4 . 1 5 4 . 1 7 579 Sr y 3 4 . 0 3 U6£l 591 J r . 2 „ 3.97 D6£> 997 Sr.y.2,, 9 0 5 ^ 5 yr. „ a . 96 U62 378^ Q 6 i l 991 6 yr. 4.02 t3Q5), 773 7 yr, 4.14 394 T56 4.09 4 . 0 0 3T52 4252 1525 5337 4612 7830 11386 2075 2846 4380 3947 8664 10773 6747 5300 2951 2683 1623 357 2187 1940 3373 4299 "1106 1699 2534 2094 4485 3490 2976 2102 1083 1693 38 23 41 42 43 38 53 60 58 53 52 32 44 40 37 63 14 5 18 16 26 38 6 8 12 11 24 30 23 18 10 9 Report No. 33. Year 1941 % Total Milk pro-duced on 3X H i k i n g TOTAL PRODUCTION of cows on 3 X Basis MilkMbs Fat lbs Milk lbs ACTUAL PRODUCTION due to 3X Milkings Fat lbs. TOTAL DAYS DAYS ACTUALLY LACTATIONI ON 3X MILKING % Fat DAYS MILKED 3X as %• Total Days 8 1 5 7 . 5 1 6 . 5 12 1 1 . 5 1 1 . 5 1 2 . 5 8 1 5 . 5 75915 19344 18724 8700 3008 803 697 365 136090 5601 11019]. 4489 13963S 1 5596 17485$ 82619 98493 10229$ 24908 7018 3360 3909 4096 1017 9 yr. (.2051 6073 1Q ,7?. 2901 11, yr« 240 U o & 1404 1435 5.yr. 16331 6 y r f 7713 z,yr I 6 0 5 S 20109 9 yr«. 644 10327 10 yr i l - y r * . 3861 419 U651 120 (305) 52 ao5) 60 672 136^ 2 314 U651 H06 0621 274 327 b651 157 3 . 9 6 4 . 1 5 3 . 7 2 4.20 4.12 4 . 0 7 4.01 4.01 4 . 06 3 . 9 7 4 . 0 0 4 . 0 8 2103-610 610 305 3779 3226 3958 4591 2555 2484 2973 701 678 450 181 305 2088 905 2029 2334 1467 671 994 549 32 74 30 100 55 28 51 51 57 27 33 78 Report No. 34. Year 1942 %.Total ! i l k . pro-duced on 3 X Milking TOTAL PRODUCTION of cows on 3X Basis MilkMbs Fat lbs. Milk lbs ACTUAL PRODUCTION due to 3 X Milkings Fat lbs. % Fat TOTAL DAYS DAYS ACTUALLY LACTATION! ON 3 X MILKING DAYS MILKED 3 X as % Total Days 6 . 5 8 . 5 9 4 8 7 6 8 . 5 8 1 0 . 5 7 . 5 9 . 5 6 . 5 11 10 125067 74479 152964 102160 156788 236535 78348 109159 95003 39671 154757 301819 156502 99445 86968 74351 5085 2977 6130 4115 6652 9599 3333 4557 3915 1662 6311 12339 6444 3812 3577 2951 8129 6331 13766 4086 12543 16557 4701 9279 7600 4165 10833 22636 14868 6464 9566 7435 J r . 4 326 Sr. 4 2?3 J2U_3. 4 . 0 6 551 Sr.,.3 4 . 0 0 b o a w J r . 2 332 Sr. 2 4 . 0 0 b o a 4 . 0 3 b o & I72 J r . 4 4.24 to. 4 . 0 6 200 Sr. 4 3H7 J r . 3 4 . 2 5 te6si 313 Sr. 3 4 . 1 7 h651 174 J r ^ - 2 4.12 U621 4.188 442 Sr. 2 L36£ 4 . 0 8 923 5 vr. Q652 613 6 vr. 4 . 0 8 b o s i 24c 393 8 yr. 4.12 t3021 ^783 b o a 294 4.11 b o 2 1 : 3 . 9 6 3813 1990 5127 3527 6636 8426 2447 2755 3456 1082 6477 10571 4677 2673 2404 2070 978 684 1909 512 2076 2294 573 973 1146 478 1753 3188 1811 659 1124 855 26 34 37 1 5 31 27 23 35 33 44 27 30 39 25 47 41 Report No. 34. Year 1942 % Total Milk pro-duced on 3 X TOTAL PRODUCTION of cows on 3 X Basis ACTUAL PRODUCTION due to 3 X Milkings TOTAL DAYS LACTATION DAYS ACTUALLY ON 3 X MILKING DAYS MILKED 3 X as Total No. Cows Milking MilkMbs Fat lbs. Milk lbs Fat l b s. % Fat Days 9 yr. (305) 7 . 5 68262 2524 5120 189 10 yr. 3.70 (305) 1777 523 29 6 9 23390 951 2105 82 11 yr. 4.07 U 0 5 ) 573 216 37 2 8 22450 917 1796 73 13 yr. 4.08 (305) 580 191 33 2 12 10208 355 1 2 2 5 42 5 yr. ... 3.42 (365) 305 168 55 1 9 56778 2264 5110 203 6 yr. 3.98 1732 664 38 5 8 . 5 123981 4772 10538 406 7 yr. ' 3.0*5 (365) 3250 1124 35 9 8 59688 2389 4-775 191 4 . 0 0 1669 526 32 5 6663 8 yr. (365) 8 . 5 78393 3198 271 9 J ! r -4.07 ( 3 6 5 ) 2113 732 35 6 11 101505 4159 11166 4 $ 10 Yr. 4 . 10 (365) 2885 1407 49 8 6 23039 998 1382 60 11 yr. 4-. 33 (365) 703 158 22 2 . i o . 5 9314-6 3798 9780 399 12 yr. 4.08 (365) 2555 1161 45 7 9 27430 1067 2469 96 14 yr. 3.88 (365) 728 276 38 2 1 5 . 5 27430 1132 4252 175 16 yr. 4 .12 (365) 721 568 79 2 3 10836 450 325 13 4 . 1 5 365 45 12 1 Report No. 35, Year 194-3 Cows Milked on 3 x B a s i s Part, -$ Total Milk pro-duced on 3X Milking TOTAL PRODUCTION of cows on 3X Basis ACTUAL PRODUCTION due to 3X Milkings TOTAL DAYS LACTATIOK DAYS ACTUALLY ON 3X MILKING DAYS MILKED 3X as % • Total Days -No. Cows Milk lbs Fat lbs. Milk lbs Fat l b s. % Fat J r . 4(305 > 9 47475 1872 4272 171 4 . 0 0 1496 540 36 5 ir.4 " 8 . 5 100489 4117 8542 350 4 . 1 0 3243 1150 35 11 Jr. 3 " 8 91708 3827 7337 306 4 . 1 7 3309 1074 32 11 Sr. 3 " 8 199372 8245 15950 660 4.14 6266 2107 33 21 T r . 2 1 1 5 . 5 100385 4196 5521 231 4 . 1 8 4231 892 21 14 Jr. 2 " 6 178203 7422 IO692 445 4 . 1 6 6939 1679 24 23 j'r. 4(36 5! 5 46176 1891 2309 94 4 . 0 9 1389 247 18 4 'r . 4 1 1 8 77826 3157 6226 252 4 . 0 5 2175 684 31 6 r . 3 1 1 1 8736 . 362 87 3 4.14 3 . 6 5 12 3 1 Sr. 3 1 1 6 153697 6434 9222 386 4 . 1 9 . 4406 1054 24 13 vr. 2 » 7 153466 6308 10743 442 4 . 1 1 5665 1610 28 16 Sr. 2 " 6 . 5 197376 8416 12829 547 4 . 2 6 7518 1939 26 21 5 y r . ( 3 0 5 : 8 106142 4307 8491 345 4 . 0 6 2918 922 32 10 Syr. 8 124534 5048 9963 404 4 . 0 5 3301 1068 32 11 .'yr. 11 7 . 5 69462 2756 5210 207 3 . 9 7 1779 537 30 6 Gyr. » 8 80213 3298 6417 264 4 . 1 1 2113 706 33 7 tyr. " 5 59535 2344 2977 117 3 .93 1742 335 19 6 1 0 y r . u 6 . 5 94448 3801 6139 244 - 4 . 0 2 2361 584 2 5 8 H y r . " 2 18815 765 376 15 4 . 0 7 593 43 7 2 I-2yr . " 5 21763 846 1088 42 3 .89 610 114 19 2 ferr (365: 8 153570 6341 12286 507 4 . 1 3 4292 1327 31 12 6 y r . 8 175820 7167 14066 574 4 . 0 8 4760 1465 31 14 'yr. " 6 . 5 85633 3432 5566 223 4 . 0 1 2453 607 2 5 7 *yr. " 4 . 5 39130 1473 1760 66 3 .76 1095 181 17 3 /yr. 11 1 3 . 5 38456 1593 5192 215 4.14 1079 679 63 3 Report No. 35. Year 1943 (Cont'd.2). Cows Milked on 3x Basis Part. % Total Milk pro-duced on 3 X Milking TOTAL PRODUCTION of cows on 3 X Basis ACTUAL PRODUCTION due to 3 X Milkings TOTAL DAYS LACTATION-DAYS IACTUALLY ON 3 X MILKING l i l k M b s Fat lbs Milk lbs Fat lbs % Fat DAYS MILKED 3 X as $ Total Days No. Cows lOyr l l y r . 1 2 y r . 1 3 y r . " l 6 y r . " JC3* 5) 5 . 5 1 .5 3 9 .16 .5 49979 12174 38075 39652 13452 2052 500 1485 1542 555 2749 183 1142 3569 2220 113 5 42 138 92 4.11 4.11 3 . 9 0 3 .88 4 . 1 3 1317 353 1083 952 332 270 22 122 350 332 21 6 11 37 100 4 1 3 3 1 Report No. 36. Year 1944--% Total Milk pro-duced on 3X TOTAL PRODUCTION of cows on 3X Basis ACTUAL PRODUCTION due to 3 X Milkings TOTAL DAYS LACTATION DAYS ACTUALLY ON 3X MILKING DAYS MILKED 3 X as %•• Total No. Cows Milking MilkMbs- Fat lbs. Milk lbs Fat lbs. % Fat Days Jr.4 (305 ) 6 101508 4151 6090 249 4 .09 3291 785 24 11 dr. 4 " 1 0 . 5 23444 953 2462 100 4.07 598 271 45 2 Jr. 3 1 1 7 .5 58296 2484 4372 186 4.26 2120 639 30 7 Sr. 3 " 3 . 5 98957 4202 3463 147 4 . 2 5 3291 443 13 11 Jr. 2 « 5 109002 4566 5450 228 4118 4244 782 18 14 Sr. 2 " 5 125494 5254 6275 263 4.19 4856 882 18 16 Jr.4 (365 ) 10 .5 25949 960 2725 100 3 .69 730 327 45 2 ^r.4 » 9 97794 4185 8801 376 4 .27 2744 1029 38 8 r.3 " 7 .5 108116 4535 8109 336 4.19 3928 1135 29 11 Sr. 3 " 5 35560 1384 1778 69 3 . 8 9 1096 219 20 3 Jr. 2 «' 6 . 5 81131 3272 5274 213 4.03 3154 825 26 9 Sr. 2 •» 6 114947 4651 6897 279 4 . 0 5 4190 970 23 12 ?yr . ( 3 0 5 I 4 40480 1637 1619 65 4.04 1186 184 1 5 4 6yr . ( 3 0 5 » 9 . 5 46573 1897 4424 180 4.07 1489 579 39 5 .7yr. '»• 7 .5 65106 2498 4883 187 3.83 1811 526 29 5 Syr. " 3 45560 1825 1367 55 4.03 1207 127 11 4 9yr. " 3 . 5 19428 783 679 27 4.00 609 85 14 2 lOyr. » 12 .5 32884 1303 4111 159 3 .96 825 476 58 3 Uyr. " 0 . 5 8754 411 43 2 4 .69 305 5 2 1 5 y r . ( 3 6 5 : 8 . 5 119142 5013 10127 421 4.20 3232 1125 35 9 6 y r 1 1 13 57188 2146 7434 279 3 . 7 5 1345 807 60 4 7 y r . M 9 62522 2416 5627 217 3.86 1679 605 36 5 8yr. « 4 . 5 24159 982 1087 44 4.06 730 130 17 2 9yr. » 2 . 5 22456 930 561 23 4.14 730 73 10 2 Report No. 36. Year 1944 (Contd.) % Total Milk pro-duced on 3X Milking TOTAL PRODUCTION of cows on 3 X Basis l i l k M b s Fat lbs. Milk lbs ACTUAL PRODUCTION due to 3X Milkings Fat lbs. % Fat TOTAL DAYS LACTATION* DAYS ACTUALLY ON 3X MILKING DAYS MILKED 3X as ? Total Days No. Cows 10yr . ( 3 4 5 ) 6 l l y r . » 3 . 5 12yr. " 1 . 5 14yr. " 2 20738 34040 11806 11591 852 1375 513 400 1244 1191 177 232 51 48 7 10 4.11 4.04 4.35 3.45 737 1021 365 365 170 133 22 29 23 13 6 8 2 3 1 1 Report No. 37 Year 1945 % Total Milk pro-duced on 3 X TOTAL PRODUCTION of cows on 3X Basis ACTUAL PRODUCTION due to 3X Milkings TOTAL DAYS LACTATION DAYS ACTUALLY ON 3X MILKING DAYS MILKED 3X as %•• Total No. Cows ] Milking MilkMbs Fat lbs. Milk lbs Fat l b s. % Fat Days Jr .4'305 ) 8 . 5 82794 3474 7037 295 4 . 1 9 2635 914 35 9 Sr . 4 [ 3 0 5 ) 8 . 5 84825 3596 7210 306 4.24 2431 826 34 8 J r . 3 " 7 . 5 98595 4255 7395 319 4 . 3 2 3277 986 30 11 Sr. 3 " 10 92413 3798 9241 380 4 . 1 1 2723 1196 43 9 J r . 2 » 3 57178 2444 1715 73 4 . 2 7 2304 258 11 7 Sr. 2 " 8 . 5 154892 6331 13166 534 4 . 0 9 5490 1918 35 18 J r . 4136 5 ) 11 34950 1468 3845 161 4 . 2 0 1091 517 49 3 Sr.4 « 2 . 5 25980 1029 650 2 5 3 .96 730 66 9 2 Jr. 3 " 8 83488 3577 6679 286 4 . 2 8 2895 891 31 8 Sr. 3 " 8 . 5 111217 4744 9453 404 4 . 2 7 3823 1331 35 11 J r . 2 « 5 116881 4955 5844 248 4.24 4698 848 18 13 Sr.2 » 8 152489 6369 12199 506 4 . 1 8 5151 1723 33 1.5 "5yr .(305 ) 7 . 5 180972 7511 13572 563 4 . 1 5 5146 1556 30 17 6 r . « 7 92910 3835 6504 269 4.13 2604 756 29 9 7 y r . " 7 124709 4992 8730 349 4 . 0 0 3512 • 1010 29 12 . 8 y r . " 3 22194 826 666 24 3 . 7 2 602 68 11 2 9 y r . 1 1 4 . 5 19664 784 885 35 3 . 9 8 519 88 17 2 lOyr, " 7 . 5 44169 1902 3313 143 4.31 1175 357 30 4 l l y r , " 12 33118 1286 3974 154 3 .88 898 492 55 3 5 y r . 6 6 5 ) 7 116611 5150 8163 357 4.42 3588 968 27 10 6yr- 11 6 96986 4063 5819 244 4 . 1 9 2756 671 24 8 7 y r . " 9 129375 5474 11644 493 4 . 2 3 3371 1234 37 10 8 y r . 21; 58669 2413 1174 48 4 . 1 1 1698 139 8 5 9 y r . w 1 0 . 5 35283 1521 3705 160 4 . 3 1 104® 481 46 3 Report Mo. 3 7 . Year 1945 (Cont . 2 ) % Total Milk pro-duced on 3 X Milking TOTAL PRODUCTION of cows on 3 X Basis l i l k M b s Fat lbs. Milk lbs ACTUAL PRODUCTION due to 3X Milkings Fat lbs. % Fat TOTAL ' DAYS LACTATION! DAYS lACTUALLY ON 3X MILKING DAYS MILKED 3X a s i Total Days No. Cows lOyr. 1 2 y r . u l 6 y r . tt (365) 8 3 14 . 5 22362 23499 12111 863 968 453 1789 705 1756 69 29 66 3.86 4*12 3.74 730 730 365 229 78 251 31 11 69 2 2 1 Report No. 38. Year 1946 % Total Milk pro-duced on 3 X TOTAL PRODUCTION of cows on 3 X Basis ACTUAL PRODUCTION due to 3X Milkings TOTAL DAYS LACTATION DAYS ACTUALLY ON 3 X MILKING DAYS MILKED 3X as % • Total No. Cows 1 h i k i n g MilkMbs Fat lbs. Milk lbs Fat lbs. % Fat Days J r . 4(30: 1 0 . 5 77012 3014 8086 316 3 . 91 2024 931 46 7 Sr. 4 » 9.5 11665: 4975 11082 473 4 . 2 7 3089 1242 40 10 Jr. 3 " 9 67676 2404 6091 216 3 . 5 5 2436 870 36 8 Sr.3 " 9.5 158305 6557 15039 623 4.14 4808 1938 40 16 J r . 2 " 8.5 99388 4207 8448 357 4 . 23 3629 1245 34 12 Sr. 2 » 5 96509 3877 4825 194 4 . 02 3302 614 19 11 Jr . 4 ^ 6 ' ) 10 109771 4334 10977 434 3 . 9 5 3092 1273 41 9 Sr. 4 » 10 86683 3482 8668 348 4 . 02 2378 1003 42 7 Tr.3 u 12, 126992 5080 15239 610 4.00 3821 2118 55 11 Sr. 3 " 1 0 . 5 64037 2770 6724 291 4.33 1979 888 4 5 6 <Jr.2 " 4 83383 3267 3335 131 3 .92 3270 480 15 9 Sr. 2 '» 6.5 154009 6355 10010 413 4.13 5329 1383 26 15 ° 5 y r . ( 3 0 5 ) 9 120561 4827 , IO850 434 4.00 3273 1259 38 11 6 y r . » 9 120704 4781 10863 430 3 .96 3480 1302 37 11 7 y r . " 4.5 100275 4031 4512 181 4 . 0 2 2901 492 17 10 8 y r . " 9 92934 3779 8364 340 4 . 06 2368 859 36 8 ' 9 y r . 3 58807 2372 1764 71 4 . 0 3 1508 188 12 5 1 0 y r . 3 9815 370 294 11 3.77 297 37 12 1 l l y r . »' 7 33614 1423. 2353 100 4 . 2 3 894 267 29 3 -12yr . » 3.5 10014 424 350 1 5 4 . 23 305 41 13 1 13yr. " 5.5 10191 401 561 22 3 . 93 305 63 21 1 5yxo(369 ) 1 0 . 5 46011 1871 4831 196 4 . 06 1279 559 44 4 % r . " 6.5 77496 3325 5037 216 4 . 29 2160 569 26 6 , 7 y r . •» 10.5 77910 3009 8181 316 3 . 86 1993 876 44 6 Report No. 38. Year 1946 (gont.2) % Total Milk pro-duced on 3X Milking MilkMbs TOTAL PRODUCTION of cows on 3X Basis Fat lbs. Milk lbs Fat lbs ACTUAL PRODUCTION due to 3X Milkings % Fat TOTAL DAYS DAYS ACTUALLY LACTATION ON 3X MILKING DAYS MILKED 3X as %• Total Days No. Cows 8 y r " 9 y r . lOyi. l l y i . layi. I 3 y i . (365) 10 5 . 5 l 3 . 5 10 5 75777 69764 10833 61299 10369 39717 3199 2753 480 2553 421 1689 7577 3837 108 2 1 4 5 1036 1986 320 151 5 85 42 84 4 . 2 2 3 . 9 5 4.43 4.16 4.06 4 . 2 5 1825 1825 365 1738 365 1027 782 379 13 247 159 183 43 21 4 14 43 18 5 5 1 5 l 3 APPENDIX CALCULATION OF MATURE EQUIVALENTS The following correction factors which are in use at Iowa State College, were used in calculating mature equivalents. Corrections for Age Correction for length of lactation. Age Factor Days Factor Jr. Two 1.26 365 .87 Sr. Two 1.19 361-364 .88 Jr. Three 1.13 356-360 .89 Sr. Three 1.08 351-355 .90 Jr. Four 1.05 346-350 .91 Sr. Four 1.03 341-345 .92 Five 1.032: 336-340 .93 Six 1.009 331-335 .94 Seven 1.000 326-330 .95 Eight 1.002 321-325 .96 Nine 1.010 . 316-320 .97 Ten 1.026 311-315 .98 Eleven 1.049 306-310 .99 Twelve 1.082 Thirteen 1.124 Fourteen 1.182 CORRECTIONS FOR MILKING FREQUENCY Three times per day •0.833 ABSTRACT The present system of reporting record of perform-ance i n Canadian Ayrshire c a t t l e , does not allow d i r e c t comparisons to be made between cows of d i f f e r e n t ages and l a c t a t i o n lengths. In the United States the Ayrshire Breeders Association corrects i n d i v i d u a l records to Mature Equivalence by the use of conversion factors. These M.E. records allow d i r e c t comparisons between a l l cows, and are also used i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of s i r e indexes. This system has been used successfully i n the United States for a long period of time, and has proven merit. However, i t depends on the use of conversion f a c t o r s , which are mathematically accurate only for the group of data from which they were calculated. The M.E. system forecasts the expected production of a cow at maturity. This expected production i s almost c e r t a i n l y never exactly made when the cow does reach maturity. The deviation from t h i s expected production may often be s l i g h t , but sometimes large deviations can occur. Farmers do not l i k e to deal i n any other terms than actual production terms. The proposed modified system described below, deals only i n actual production terms. A modification of the present Canadian system i s suggested, which allows d i r e c t comparisons to be made between a l l cows, and also i s simple to understand and easy to remember and apply. The main points of t h i s modified method are: 1. The setting up of fourteen age-lactation period classes. 2. Five year moving averages would then be calculated for these classes. 3 . The present a r b i t r a r y scale for q u a l i f i c a t i o n i n R.O.P. i s abandoned, and a l l records are used i n computing class averages. 4 . The i n d i v i d u a l record i s expressed as a percentage of the class average to which i t belongs. 5 « Dam-daughter comparisons are made between percentage production of class averages, and s i r e indexes are re-ported i n terms of percentages. In t h i s study a l l the qualifying records of Ayrshires on Record of Performance for the period 1 9 4 1 to 1 9 4 6 i n -clusive were studied. An attempt was made to obtain the non-quali-fying records, for the same period, from the Ayrshire Breeders Association but they decided not to release them for research purposes. Two f i v e year moving averages were calculated for the following fourteen classes: J r . 2 (305 days); Sr. 2 (305 days ); J r . 2 ( 3 6 5 days ); Sr. 2 ( 3 6 5 days) J r . 3 (305 days); Sr. 3 (305 days ); J r . 3 ( 3 6 5 days ); Sr. 3 ( 3 6 5 days) J r . 4 (305 days); Sr. 4 (305 days ); J r . 4 ( 3 6 5 days ); Sr. 4 ( 3 6 5 days) Mature (305 days); Mature ( 3 6 5 days). The i n d i v i d u a l records of the daughters of three University of B.C.Ayrshire si r e s and the dams of those daughters were expressed as percentages of the f i v e year averages for 1 9 4 2 to 1 9 4 6 i n c l u s i v e . Dam-daughter comparisons were made and equal parent indexes calculated for these three s i r e s , using the percentage system. LIST OF REFERENCES 1. ALLEN, N.N. 194-4. A standard for evaluation of dairy s i r e s proved i n dairy herd improvement associations. JOURNAL DAIRY SCIENCE Vol. XXVII. P. 835. 2. BERRY, J.C. 1939. High records contrasted with unselected records and with average records as a basis for selecting cows. JOURNAL DAIRY SCIENCE Vol. XXII. P. 607 - 617. 3. BERRY, J.C. 1945. R e l i a b i l i t y of averages of d i f f e r e n t numbers of l a c t a t i o n records f o r comparing dairy cows. JOURNAL DAIRY SCIENCE Vol. XXVIII. P. 355 - 366. 4. CONKLIN, C.T. 1947. Increasing the benefits of te s t i n g . THE AYRSHIRE DIGEST. No.8. Vol. XXXIII. P. 5-5. ECKLES, C.H. COMBS, W.B. MACY, H. 1929. Milk and milk products. P. 45. MacGRAW HILL BOOK CO.INC., NEW YORK AND LONDON 6. ESPE, D.L. 1938. Secretion of milk. COLLEGIATE PRESS INC., AMES, IOWA. 7. JOUBERT, M. 1948. Mature equivalent and Breed Average. CANADIAN AYRSHIRE REVIEW. No. 9 Vol. XXVIII. P. 3 8. JOUBERT:, M-194-9. Proposed Approved Sire Plan. CANADIAN AYRSHIRE REVIEW. No. 9 Vol . ffl!. P. 7 9. JOUBERT, M. 194-9. Private communication. 10. LUSH, J.L. 1943. Animal breeding plans. THE IOWA STATE COLLEGE PRESS, AMES, IOWA. 11. LUSH, J.L. 1933. The b u l l index i n the l i g h t of modern genetics. JOURNAL DAIRY SCIENCE. Vol. XVI. P. 5 0 1 . 12. LUSH, J.L. 1937. Differences between records, r e a l productivity and breeding values of dairy cows. JOURNAL DAIRY SCIENCE. Vol. XX. P. 440. 1 3 . McKINNON, W.L. 1947. A study on the mature equivalent index* CAN.AYR.. REV. SEPT. 1947. Vol. 28. No.5 P . 1 7 . " " « OCT. 1947. Vol. 28. No.6 P.12. 14. NORTON, H.W. 1947. CRONSHAWS - Dairy Information. P.100. DAIRY INDUSTRIES LTD., FLEET ST., LONDON. 1 5 . PUTNAM. 1943. The use of f i r s t records versus the average of a l l records i n dam-daughter comparisons when proving s i r e s . JOURNAL DAIRY SCIENCE. Vol. XXVI. P. 9 6 7 . 16. RICE, V.A. 194-4. A new method of indexing dairy b u l l s . JOURNAL DAIRY SCIENCE. Vol. XXVII. P.921. 17. SHULL, G.H. Estimating the number of genetic factors concerned i n blending inheritance. THE AMER. NAT. Vo l . 55. No.641. 18. TURNER, C.W. 1926. A quantitative form of expressing persistency of milk and fat secretion. JOURNAL DAIRY SCIENCE. Vol. IX. 1926. P.203. 19. TURNER, C.W. 1927« The mode of inheritance of yearly butterfat production. MO. AGR. EXP. STA.. RES. BULL. No. 112. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106796/manifest

Comment

Related Items