TRANSMITTING ABILITY OF HOLSTEIN-FRIESIAN SIRES 
15 
Table 5. — Ranking of the 2S sires in various classes based on the comparative 
production of their daughters 
Relative 
rank 
in this 
group 
Number 
of 
daugh- 
ters 
Rank according to- 
Sire 
Average 
milk 
yield of 
daugh- 
ters 
Average 
butterfat 
yield of 
daugh- 
ters 
Average 
increase 
of milk 
Average 
increase 
of 
butterfat 
Percent- 
age of 
daugh- 
ters 
making 
increase 
in milk 
Percent- 
age of 
daugh- 
ters 
making 
increase 
in 
butterfat 
Total 
of 
rank- 
ings 
E 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
6 
13 
12 
9 
6 
9 
6 
7 
6 
11 
20 
6 
9 
11 
7 
6 
6 
6 
16 
6 
7 
7 
7 
1 
5 
2 
4 
9 
3 
8 
6 
10 
12 
7 
15 
16 
14 
11 
20 
17 
18 
13 
21 
23 
22 
19 
3 
5 
2 
7 
9 
4 
8 
1 
11 
12 
6 
13 
15 
16 
10 
19 
17 
18 
14 
23 
21 
22 
20 
5 
2 
6 
3 
1 
8 
7 
12 
4 
9 
11 
13 
10 
16 
18 
15 
14 
20 
21 
17 
22 
19 
23 
5 
2 
3 
4 
1 
6 
8 
7 
9 
12 
10 
11 
14 
17 
20 
13 
15 
16 
23 
18 
19 
21 
22 
1 
2 
3 
6 
5 
6 
3 
13 
7 
4 
11 
7 
10 
8 
9 
7 
12 
16 
14 
12 
13 
15 
17 
1 
3 
8 
2 
6 
7 
4 
10 
12 
5 
11 
4 
13 
9 
16 
12 
12 
14 
18 
15 
16 
17 
16 
16 
B... 
19 
C 
24 
D 
26 
A 
31 
F 
34 
H._ 
38 
Q 
49 
I. 
53 
L 
54 
J... 
56 
K_. 
63 
N 
78 
Q 
80 
T. 
84 
M 
86 

87 
P 
102 
W 
103 
R 
106 
S 
114 
u 
116 
V 
117 
No sire has the same rank in all classes. Several have the same 
rank in three classes. The smallest total of the rankings in the six 
classes indicates the sire having the best general rank. 
This method of comparing the merit of several sires for their 
ability to transmit milk and butterfat producing capacity to their 
•daughters is not without its faults, rrobably the most serious 
fault is in allowing average production of milk and of butterfat to 
have equal weight with the average increase of milk and butterfat 
yield and the percentage of daughters that were better than their 
dams. These last two qualifications would appear to measure fairly 
the influence of the sire; but the first qualification, the average yield 
of daughters, may be due to a very great extent to the influence of 
the dams. 
An illustration of the influence that the high average production 
may have in the final rankings is shown in sires Q, T, M, O, and P, 
whose final relative rankings are near together. The average pro- 
ductions of milk and butterfat of the daughters of these sires are 
given in Table 6. 
Table 6. — Production of daughters (and their dams) from five sires with com- 
parative rankings shown 
Sire 
Rank 
Daughters 
Dams 
Milk 
Fat 
Milk 
Fat 
Q 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
Pounds 
17, 613. 6 
18, 542. 
14, 825. 2 
15, 676. 6 
15, 584. 6 
Pounds 
585.7 
634.5 
523.5 
556.3 
532.2 
Pounds 
17. 249. 3 
18. 811. 4 
14, 015. 8 
14, 783. 7 
■ 16,328.7 
Pounds 
589.6 
T 
685.8 
M 
492.9 

543.1 
P 
525. i 
