﻿TRANSMITTING ABILITY OF HOLSTEIN-FRIESIAN SIRES 



17 



daughters. Sire I ranks ninth in prepotencj^ among the 23 sires as 

 measured in Table 5. The daughters of sne E, who ranks first in 

 prepotency for production capacity in Table 5, show a greater 

 coenicient of variation than do their dams. This is also true of the 

 daughters of sire B, who ranks second, but the daughters of sires 

 C, D, and A who rank third, fourth, and fifth, respectively, in Table 

 5, all show a smaller coefficient of variation than do their dams. 

 Thus it will be seen that greater or less uniformity of production of a 

 sire's daughters as compared mth that of their dams is no indication 

 of the sire's prepotency for producing capacity. 



The smallest variation of production in butterfat in any group of 

 daughters is found in the daughters of sire U, that have a standard 

 deviation of only 30 pounds butterfat and a coefficient of variation of 

 6.68 per cent. Sire U ranks twenty-second in the 23 sires for pre- 

 potency, according to Table 5. Sire I's daughters show the greatest 

 variation — standard deviation 170 pounds butterfat — in any group 

 of daughters, as well as the greatest increase in coefficient of variation 

 as compared with that of their dams. The daughters of sire G show 

 the second greatest standard deviation among the groups of daughters, 

 with 161 pounds. Sire G ranks eighth among the 23 sires. Neither 

 the greatest nor the least variations among the groups of daughters, 

 nor the amoimt of variation among daughters as compared with that 

 of their dams, is indicative of the prepotency of the sire in trans- 

 mitting producing capacity. This will probably be true as long as 

 the sires and dams that are mated are heterozygous in their hereditary 

 factors controlling producing capacity. 



Table 7. — Standard deviation and coefficient of variation of butterfat records of 

 the daughters of each of the 23 sires, and of the dams of the daughters; also the 

 increase or decrease of coefficient of variation of the daughters of each sire as com- 

 pared with that of their dams; and the rankings of the sires as in Table 5 





Daughters 



Dams 



Increase or 

 decrease in 

 coefficient 



of 

 variation 



Rank of 

 sires 



Sire 



Standard 

 deviation 



Coefficient 

 of variation 



Standard 

 deviation 



Coefficient 

 of variation 



A.. 



Pounds 

 90.9 

 131.9 

 100.8 

 95. 6 

 103. 1 

 144.7 

 161.9 

 68.7 

 170.3 

 1.58. 

 107.4 

 99.0 

 47.0 

 76. 3 

 136. 7 

 95. 7 

 95. 8 

 51. 5 

 61.0 

 71.2 

 30.2 

 48.5 

 89.4 



Per cent 

 13.81 

 17.69 

 12.81 

 13.88 

 1.3. 15 

 19.03 

 20.34 

 10.42 

 26. 91 

 21.48 

 17.25 

 15. 88 

 8.98 

 12. 57 

 21. 58 

 17. 98 

 16. 35 

 11.90 

 12.09 

 11.22 

 0.68 

 0. 55 

 14.30 



Pounds 

 85.0 

 80.6 

 113.4 

 128.9 

 2.5.6 

 92.6 

 110.5 

 78.5 

 02.7 

 217.7 

 91.2 

 86.1 

 72.7 

 148.7 

 H2.9 

 66. 9 

 80.3 

 63.1 

 613 

 35. 5 

 78.0 

 77.7 



o:UG 



Per cent 

 18.20 

 13.85 

 17.50 

 22.94 



3.85 

 14.22 

 11.54 

 13.84 

 11.56 

 33.05 

 16. 63 

 1187 

 14. 73 

 25. 22 

 26! .31 

 12.70 

 13.61 

 14.25 

 12.00 



5.10 

 15.28 

 13. 00 



8.50 



-4.39 

 +3.84 

 -169 

 -9.06 

 +9.30 

 +4.81 

 +8.80 

 -3.42 

 +15. 35 

 -11.57 

 +0. 62 

 +1.01 

 -5.75 

 -12. 65 

 -1.73 

 +5.28 

 +2.74 

 -2. 35 

 +0.09 

 +0. 06 

 -8. 00 

 -4.11 

 +5.80 



6 



B 



2 



C 



3 



D _. 



4 



E - 



1 



F 



6 



O 



8 



H 



7 



I 



9 



J 



11 



K 



12 



L 



10 



M 



10 



N 



13 







17 



P 



18 



Q 



14 



R 



20 



8 



21 



T 



15 



U 



22 



V 



23 



W 



10 







