Comparison of daughter's performance of progeny tested sires with pedigree selected sires in Holstein Friesian crossbred cattle

Abstract views: 114 / PDF downloads: 52


  • ASHISH C PATEL Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat 388 001 India
  • NILESH NAYEE Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat 388 001 India
  • SUJIT SAHA Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat 388 001 India
  • SWAPNIL GAJJAR Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat 388 001 India
  • D N RANK Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat 388 001 India


Breeding value, Crossbred, Holstein Friesian, Pedigree selection, Progeny testing


The present study was conducted to compare the estimated breeding values of progeny tested sires and pedigree selected sires for test day milk yield of crossbred Holstein Friesian cattle. First lactation milk yield records (1,20,198) of 12,971 daughters sired by 267 sires were collected from INAPH database maintained by NDDB. Variance and covariance components for test-day milk yield (TDMY) were estimated by different random regression test day models (RRTDM), viz. Cubic B- Spline function, Quadratic B-Spline function, Legendre polynomial (LP) function and Wilmink function using Average Information Restricted Maximum Likelihood (AIREML). Considering various criteria for comparison of different orders of TDMs, LP of 6th order for TDMY was the best fitted model for further estimation of breeding values. The heritability estimates ranged from 0.15 to 0.39 for TDMY using Leg_2 model. The additive genetic correlations were higher than the phenotypic correlations among different TDs. The additive genetic correlations between test day yields varied from 0.73 to 0.99. The expected progeny difference (EPD) for TDMYcalculated based on dam’s yield for the top ten and bottom ten PS bulls was 2,662.5 kg; whereas, the actual progeny difference (APD) for these bulls was -28.47 kg. While, EPD for top 10 and bottom 10 PT bulls selected based on EBVs was 2,820.52 kg whereas the APD for PT bulls was 890.48 kg. The difference in expected and actual MY of progeny was higher in PS bulls as compared to PT bulls indicating that the pedigree information for EPDs had a poor association with APDs and sire superiority is not reflected in progeny’s actual performance. The rank correlation between ranks of all PS and PT bulls were very poor and non-significant. The bulls selected based on estimated breeding values will give faster genetic progress and decision to select replacement bulls based on breeding values instead of dam’s yield will have positive effect on genetic progress.


Download data is not yet available.


Anonymous. 2012. National Dairy Plan Phase I, Manual on Progeny Testing Project, Volume IVA, Project Management Unit (located in NDDB).

Anonymous. 2018. Basic Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Statistics 2018, Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.

Akaike H. 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. (Eds) Petrov B N, Csaki F. Second international symposium on information theory. AkademiaiKaido´, Budapest. Reprinted in Kotz S, Johnson N L (Eds). Breakthroughs in Statistics, Vol. 1. Springer-Ver- lag, New York.

Akaike H. 1987. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 52: 317– 32. DOI:

Barnston AG. 1992. Correspondence among the correlation, RMSE and Heidke Forecast verification measures, refinement of Heidke score. Notes and Correspondence 7: 699–709. DOI:<0699:CATCRA>2.0.CO;2

Behzadi M R B and Mehrpoor Z. 2018. Estimation of genetic parameters of first lactation test-day milk yield using random regression models in Iranian Holstein cows. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 28(1): 24–32.

Biassus I D O, Cobuci J A, Costa C N and Cardoso L L. 2010. Persistence in milk, fat and protein production of primiparous Holstein cows by random regression models. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnica 39(12): 2617–24. DOI:

Bignardi A B, El Faro L, Cardoso V L, Machado P F and Albuquerque L G. 2009. Random regression models to estimate test-day milk yield genetic parameters Holstein cows in Southeastern Brazil. Livestock Science 123: 17. DOI:

Bignardi A B, Faro L E, Torres R A A, Cardoso V L, Machado P F and Albuquerque L G. 2011. Random regression models using different functions to model test-day milk yield of Brazilian Holstein cows. Genetics and Molecular Research 10(4): 3565–75. DOI:

Bignardi A B, Faro L E, Santana M L, Rosa G J M, Cardoso V L, Machado P F and Albuquerque L G. 2012. Bayesian analysis of random regression models using B-splines to model testday milk yield of Holstein cattle in Brazil. Livestock Science 150: 401–06. DOI:

Cobuci J A, Euclydes R F, Lopes O S, Costa C N, Torres R A and Pereira C S. 2005. Estimation of genetic parameters for testday milk yield in Holstein cows using a random regression model. Genetic Molecular Biology 28: 75–83. DOI:

Dongre V B and Gandhi R S. 2014. Genetic and phenotypic parameters of fortnightly test day and first lactation 305-day or less milk yield in Sahiwal cattle. International Journal of Livestock Research 4(3): 17–20. DOI:

Dornelles M A, Rorato P R N, Gama L T L, Bondan F C B, Everling D M, Michelotti V T and Feltes G L. 2016. Random regression models using different functions to estimate genetic parameters for milk production in Holstein Friesians. Ciencia Rural 46(9): 1649–55. DOI:

Herrera L G G, Faro L E, Albuquerque L G, Tonhati H and Machado C H C. 2008. Genetic parameters of test-day and accumulated 305 day milk yields in first lactation of Gyr cattle. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 7(10): 1774–80. DOI:

Jamrozik J and Schaeffer L R. 1997. Estimates of genetic parameters for a test day model with random regressions for yield traits of first lactation Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 80: 762–70. DOI:

Ledic I L, Verneque R D, Faro L E, Tonhati H, Martinez M L, Oliveira M D, Costa C N, Teodoro R L and Fernandes L D. 2002. Genetic evaluation of Gir breed sires for milk production at the control day and 305-days of Lactation. Revista Brasileira De Zootecnia 31(5): 1964–72. DOI:

Monalisa D, Gandhi R S, Raja T V, Singh A, and Sachdeva G K. 2014. Genetic studies on monthly test-day milk records in Sahiwal cattle. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 84(6): 706– 08.

Mostert B E, Groeneveld E and Kanfer F H J. 2004. Test day models for production traits in dairy cattle. South African Journal of Animal Science 34(2): 35–38. DOI:

Mrode R A and Thompson R. 2005. Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding value. Second edition, CABI Publication. DOI:

Naserkheil M, Ashtiani S R M, Javaremi A N, Son J and Lee D. 2016. Random regression models using Legendre polynomials to estimate genetic parameters for test-day milk protein yield in Iranian Holstein dairy cattle. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Science 29(12): 1682–87. DOI:

Olori V E, Hill W G, Mcguirk B J and Brotherstone S. 1999. Estimating variance components for test day milk records by restricted maximum likelihood with a random regression animal model. Livestock Science 61: 53–63. DOI:

Padilha A H, Costa C N, Neto J B, Daltro D S and Cobuci J A. 2017. Selecting random regression models under different minimum number of test day records. Livestock Science 199: 69–73. DOI:

Peixoto M G C D, Santos D J A, Borquis R R A, Bruneli F A T, Panetto J C C and Tonhati H. 2014. Random regression models to estimate genetic parameters for milk production of Guzerat cows using orthogonal Legendre polynomials. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira 49(5): 373–83. DOI:

Rekaya R, Carabano M J and Toro M A. 1999. Use of test-day yields for the genetic evaluation of production traits in Holstein Friesian cattle. Livestock Production Science 57: 203–17. DOI:

Santos D J A, Peixoto M G C D, Aspilcueta R R, Verneque R S, Panetto J C C and Tonhati H. 2013. Comparison of random regression models to estimate genetic parameters for milk production in Guzerat (Bos indicus) cows. Genetics and Molecular Research 12(1): 143–53. DOI:

Schaeffer L R and Dekkers J C M. 1994. Random regressions in animal models for test-day production in dairy cattle. Proc. 5th World Congress Genetics Application Livestock Production, Guelph 18: 443.

Schwarz G. 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annuals of Statistics 6: 461–64. DOI:

Swalve H H. 1995. The effect of test day models on the estimation of genetic parameters and breeding values for dairy yield traits. Journal of Dairy Science 78: 929–38. DOI:

Torshizi M E, Aslamenejad A A, Nassiri M and Malovrh S. 2013. Analysis of test day milk yield by random regression models and evaluation of persistency in Iranian dairy cows. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science 3(1): 67–76.

Wilmink J B M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. Livestock Production Science 17: 1–17. DOI:









How to Cite

PATEL, A. C., NAYEE, N., SAHA, S., GAJJAR, S., & RANK, D. N. (2020). Comparison of daughter’s performance of progeny tested sires with pedigree selected sires in Holstein Friesian crossbred cattle. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 90(4), 592-598.