Will Richardson
Cowtalk Staff
Global user
Registered: 06-2003
Location: Close to a pub
Posts: 1258
Karma: 14 (+14/-0)
|
 | 
|
|
UK Milk Proofs
I know you are all desparate to find out the new production proofs so try this link ... you will need acrobat reader to see them
http://www.animaldata.co.uk/production/bullsuk.hol.pdf
|
|
10/11/2003, 19:45
|
|
alan a
Ex96
Global user
Registered: 06-2003
Location: Fermanagh
Posts: 751
Karma: 22 (+22/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: UK Milk Proofs
Probably showing my colours again, but here goes. The new PLI is meant to have a higher weighting for type/longevity. 3 of the top 10 are negative for type merit, only 5 of the top 50 are over +2 for type merit. 6 of the top 20 are negative for lifespan.
Those negative bulls will not be marketed, as no-one will use them. So why does the index that is supposed to represent farmers needs/wants rank them so highly ?
Are the farmers wrong for letting a negative type merit worry them, or the scientists wrong with the weighting given to type ?
Last edited by alan a, 10/11/2003, 20:36
|
|
10/11/2003, 20:08
|
|
Big Bird
Cowtalk Staff
Global user
Registered: 06-2003
Posts: 2762
Karma: 33 (+33/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: UK Milk Proofs
Yes but - that one bull is borderline to what is acceptable on components, borderline on cell count, and other than udders there is nothing outstanding on his linear.
(have crash helmet on ready for mark and will's reply)
What I am about to say is a general question, not about one particular bull.
Accepting that the udder score is the most important, how does an otherwise unremarkable linear add up to a high type proof?
|
|
11/11/2003, 21:28
|
|
Will Richardson
Cowtalk Staff
Global user
Registered: 06-2003
Location: Close to a pub
Posts: 1258
Karma: 14 (+14/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: UK Milk Proofs
From HUKI website I found this
TM Weightings
The weights used to determine TM from four composites are the same as the weights used to determine final score from the four composites for females, these are:
20% Body Conformation
20% Dairy Character
20% Legs and Feet
40% Mammary
|
|
12/11/2003, 0:34
|
|
Big Bird
Cowtalk Staff
Global user
Registered: 06-2003
Posts: 2762
Karma: 33 (+33/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: UK Milk Proofs
Will - if you apply those figures to Lucentes type proof it comes out as 2.16 type merit, where as his actual figure is 2.68. This is the point I am trying to make.
Mark - how low would a bulls components need to go before you would rule out using him? Like many others we have used several high milk - lower components bulls over recent years, and the resulting cows are capable of yielding well over 10,000 litres. Because of this, and what you hear about others milk quality, I would say many people have enough mik on the cows but more solids might be needed.
|
|
12/11/2003, 9:42
|
|
Will Richardson
Cowtalk Staff
Global user
Registered: 06-2003
Location: Close to a pub
Posts: 1258
Karma: 14 (+14/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: UK Milk Proofs
There's a formula for type merit which calculates it from the linears not the composites but cant find it at present
|
|
12/11/2003, 10:16
|
|
Matron
GP80
Global user
Registered: 11-2003
Posts: 7
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: UK Milk Proofs
Dear Will,
I have been in touch with Holstein UK and Type Merit is calculated to weight the composites 20%Dairy, 20%Body, 20%Legs and Feet and 40% Mammary as you have already stated but to ‘calculate’ the actual TM you have to use multiplication factors which take into account the standard deviation of each of the composites (as they are all different). Holstein UK have provided me with the formula which is:
-0.033 + 0.296*Dairy + 0.286*Body + 0.176*F&L + 0.493*MAM
This will give you the final TM which you are after. The point that PLI doesn’t have as much ‘type’ in it as TOP isn’t really the issue as they are not looking at ‘overall type’ they are looking at specific areas of ‘type’ which are known to be associated with longevity such as Mammary, Legs and feet, Locomotion, Fore Udder Attachment and SCC etc. TOP is very similar to the new PLI, although it has a high ‘proportion’ of type components and of course has ‘body’ composite included. TOP is not a ‘genetic’ index but a ‘desired gains index’ and by definition is not wholly focused on £ profit per lactation which is exactly why the new PLI still has around 70+% of production, which is very comparable to other profit genetic indexes around the world.
Big Bird – try out the above formula on Lucente’s proof and see how it comes out, I think it works.
Just another thought - I also asked Holstein UK about foreign bulls who don't have the composites Body and Dairy sent to the UK through MACE and they do indeed predict these with a high correlation from the linears. I imagine that if you asked them they would be happy to let you know but they were clearly very busy with the evaluation run when I contacted them for the above info.
Last edited by Matron, 12/11/2003, 17:46
|
|
12/11/2003, 17:43
|
|
Bob
Local user
Registered: 06-2003
Location: Shropshire / Welsh Border
Posts: 145
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: UK Milk Proofs
Never quite understand how they can come up with a figure like 77% production and 23% health and longevity. It seems to vary so much from bull to bull. Some sires have the same £PIN as PLI and other do get big differences. It must be the average of all bulls, but you should look closely - some sires £PLI is made up totally from production and others not so. The difference between PIN and PLI is your only indicator of longevity and health traits (actually it is mostly your indicator of F&L and SCS) *See other thread on PLI.
Last edited by Bob (Local user), 12/11/2003, 18:28
|
|
12/11/2003, 18:25
|
|
click here to give a full reply or use the box below for a quick reply
Powered by AkBBS 0.9.5b - Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
Click here to get your own free message board
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: 12/10/2008, 16:24
|
|
|
:whistle 