Lamb selection by index
by Leslie O Williamson
A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate Committee in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science in Animal Industry
Montana State University
© Copyright by Leslie O Williamson (1949)
Abstract:
The lamb selection index developed by the Bureau of Animal Industry was applied to 254 purebred
Rambouillet weanling lambs at the Montana State College Agricultural Experiment Station* The
objective was to raise more accurate and systematic comparisons between individual lambs and groups
of lambs than had been possible by the usual unsystematized methods. The index takes into
consideration those environmental factors that are continually masking the genetic merit of an animal.
Comparitons were made between selecting by index, and selecting by the scoring method. The scoring
method consists of giving the Iamb an overall score of from one to five, the lower score being the
superior animal. Selection differentials were calculated for both methods of selection on six traits. The
index was more regid in selecting for open faces, smoothness and for potential nature weight. The
scoring method was more rigid in selecting for staple length, weaning weight, type and condition. The
number of lambs used in the experiment proved to be too small to rake the selection differentials an
accurate indicator of the true merit of each system. The index was used to compare the lines and tho
progeny groups. The 3000 line ewes had the heaviest lambs, the best in type and moot free of nook
folds. They also had the highest index score. The 3000 line ewes had tho lightest lambs, the poorest in
type and tho shortest stapled. The 2000 line had the most covered faces and the lowest index score. The
6000 line showed the most neck folds and was the highest conditioned. The 5000 line runs had the
highest ram index score and the 4000 line the lowest. The index when applied to sire progeny groups,
showed considerable variation between those groups. In the 2000 line, the progeny of ram B2007
showed higher merit by index score than the other progeny group in that line. There was only minor
differences in the Index score between the sire progeny groups in the 3000 line. Ram 35076 showed
considerable superiority in its progeny over the other progeny groups in the 5000 line as shown by its
progeny index scores. The progeny of ram D47489 had a much higher average index score than did the
progeny of DL7319 the other sire in the 3000 line. LAKD SBLSOTIOn DY IimM
LlSLXB 0. UIIiJAJ-SOB
A BEMS
Sulrd.ttod to tlio Chradmto Ctenrdttoo
In
partial folflllzatot of tiio requlrcmate
for -Whj dogroo of
Haster of Sclonoo in Animl Induotry
at
lfontam State Gollogo
Approved!
Imrgo of IfoJor Uork
.roan, Examining Ccmlttoo
Donmmi, Ifontem
August, 1949
|V
M
^
A m ta m z n m m tm
Tho xjrltyir Io indobtod to Hr, J. L» VcmIioni and Ae %* Fl.oi/or for
t' oir ttssidtonoo in 7jro"arrIn^ this thoolo and to Dr* Torrlll Cot M o
liolpful ouc oatlona and m p w t advioo.
O)
•
-C3l
92532
3
TABIii! OF CORTBHTS
Tables . . .
.........
.......
Appendix Tables . . . . . . . .
.......
.... . . . . .
.4
. . . * . « . . . . , . . , . 5
Abstract , . ...........
Introduction . . . . . .
.......
6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , , , , 3
,11
Review of Literature ...........................
Itota and Itotiiods
..,,,,..12
Methods of Sccodng Traits ., ........... . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Constructing a Selection Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
Results ................
21
Conpari eons of Culling Ewe Leuabs Dy Index and 'Jnsystemat5zod
Phenotypic or Scoring Method .........................
Comparing Ewe Lambs %• Lines.........
Comparing Rem Lambs By Lines . . . . . . . . .
.23
25
.................25
Comparing Sire Progeny Groups..........
23
Comparing Selection By Index To Selection Dy Scoring Dy Use of
Selection Differentials and Expected Genetic Gain . ..........,31
Summary
Literature Cited
.......
.....
.40
»,.,,42
4
TABIES
I IIumbor of 'JonnHng Imbo Uga' In Study Ir/ Limo and by Sait * , . 22
II Dim ,^election ty Linos - Both Inrloct Selootim and SolocMon by
Soaring ........................................ . . , „24
III
Avoragod Soo^e for Sis Traits - All L i m a .................. 27
IV Avomgod Sooroo by Slro Groups - Bwo Progeny....... .
* 30
V Solaction Differentials and Hspeotod Genetic Gains per Gonemtion by Index Selection and Selection by Scoring , „ . , „ ,32
VI Uorltability of Bhch Trait ........................ . . , „ # 3 3
VII
E w Imbo CtiUod by Scoring That Uere Iiot Culled by Index . , „ «34
VIII
Bwo Lambs Culled by Scoring TIiat Jero TJot Culled by Index , ♦ „ .35
IX Ctxraparioon of Environmental Baotoro and Averaged Trait Jcoros
for the Two Methods of Culling
. .36
5
APFE ZDIX TABLSS
X
Index and Individual Trait Scores for BZOOO Lino Sues . . . . .
44
XI
Index and IMividual Trait Scores for H3000 Line 'w e s ........ 46
XII
Index and Indlvldml Trait Scores for H4000 Line ISwes........ 43
XIII
Index and Individual Trait Scorns for H5000 Lino B w e e ........ 49
XIV
Index and Individual Trait Scores for H6000 Line Ewes . . . . .
53
XV
Indox and Individual Trait Scores for H7000 Line Ewes . . . . .
55
XVI
Index and Individual Trait Scores for H3000 Lino Bwea . . . . .
56
XVII
XVIII
Index and Trait Scores for H2000 and H3000 Line Rane . . . . .
Index and Individual Trait Scores for II4000 and 115000 Lino
Ratas
XIX
,57
,59
Index and Individual Trait Scores for HtoOO and II3000 Lino
Raias
.
.
................. .
.61
6
lamb
mi^cno:: j z iimcx
ABSTRACT
The Ianb selection lncte developed by the Bureeut of Anisml Inctostary m o
applied to 254 pttroTired RanbotdXlet imanliag lanlxt at the Moatans State
College A'-riottltiiml Experimnt Sto.t5.on,
The objective warn to nabs more
aeeumte r,a& s^temtio oormorloona betfuoon InSivldnal Ianlxs and croupe of
lanbo than had been "X>snlble by the turaal tneyotorsatr m d mthods,
The Index
takes into consideration tliooo env5 nomental ISaotors that are continually
nadtetec the genetic norlt of nn aadbaal#
Ccnnarloons warn m d h bot%.roon
selecting Issy index, anti selecting Irr the scoring Iethode
'Iio scoring
TaetJiod consists of giving the Ionb on overall scene of f r m c m to five,
the lover score being the superior enivsl,
Seloctlm differentials vers
oalculatod for W t h rothods of selection on six traits,
TIvo index m s more
regld In selecting for open faces, smoothness and for potential nature
wight,
Tho scoring nethod uns noro rigid in selecting for staple length,
waning weight, typo and condition,
Tlie number of lambs used in the
experiment proved to be too snail to make the selection dlfforontlala an
accurate indicator of the true merit of each oyston,
compare the lines and the progeny groves,
Tiio index was used to
1000 lino ewes Imd tlvo
heaviest lambs, the beet in type and moot froo of neck folds.
had the highest lnete score.
They also
The 3000 lino evtm Iiad the lightsst lambs,
tlie pooroet in type and the sliortost stapled, The SOCK) lino had tlvo most
covered faces and the lowest jmdox score.
neck folds and was tiio highest conditioned,
Tho 6000 line showed the vest
Hie 5000 I i m znna had the
Mgheot ran index score and t!;o 4000 line the lowest.
Hio index vlion
7
applied to sir® progeny groups, showed considerable variation botuoon tlx>ae
groups,
In tlie 2000 15.no, the progeny of ran 02007 oliovod higher norlt by
IikIq x scorn tlion tiio other progeny group In that line,
Thor© m e only
minor dlffea.'onccs in the Index scores betyeen the sir© pgnogMy groups is
the 3000 H a o * Ilm 25076 chewed conoiderai Ie superiority in Its progeny
over tie other progeny groups in the 5000 line as shows Iy its progeny
index scores,
TIso progery of ran DL74^9 had a nuoh higher average .Index
score tism did tlie progeny of DL7319 the other sire in the $000 H n e ,
S
LAKD aiLWTIOII DY I t M
m r m jo a n m
Selection Indpvjos are not now.
Sooe l e m of OEmsuriIne tt«$ not asr?*
of rlooefltto Bnlrale !me boon rsmotlood since the beginning of U e science of
anirrJL breeding Iteolf.
Tbore nj-e m n y different typee of inferao.
Sono
inf.ocmo BC--Ioct for one Laalt yldle other's select for eeverol trclte el ;ulW w o n s l y , Tbelr eourcoe of lnforantlon any differ also.
There ere these
which derive tlicir inlbrantim Iron aaooctoro only, uhi:w otlsorc depend on
tho perfoztin::<so of the aniral itself.
There la still cnoti: r typo tlat
do;ends atdrly on tho progeny for its eourco of Information.
Pedigree
ind<oces used in selecting dairy entile for sjilk ond W t t w f h t production is
a typiool exa-ple of one deriving it© information- frcn aneostoro,
KLaok and Knapp (1936) developed an index for selecting beef cattle
using the progeny tm the basis for selection.
Basel (1943) developed a selection index for -hogs which aeq^ros
m e t of its Information from the phenotype W t takes into consideration
tho goneM c and economic importance of the various traits also,
Badi type of index had a definite shortcoming which m d o it
Inoomnsoiant for practical nee.
Tie psdlr^oo index proved to ns U m t too
ticmy tines, like does not beget like.
The progeny testing type index
resulted In slow progress in animl Iz^irovansnt*
D m animle in question
were far into their productive life Wforo they wore mvan.
E W i tlm noot nccttrately constructed index taking into consideration
tho gonetic and economic lnportanoo of Uie various traits, opoodod r-srcyrscs
only slightly over tlm previous aethodo of solootion.
9
ocmr&oK gesw mi-so up of oar tmimle mZ<oe It InpoosiWjo for m
to
Goloot an oninol with only dosirablo gonotle Oiwaoterieticaf
In solootinc a auporlor antonl mo also Iaocsp rany tmdooirablo gonos
lmcauao the nnlml la the BMlloat unit wo can reject or select.
I M n is
one of the najor roaoone prorjrosr- in animal Inprovenent is oo alw.
Another factor roo-mnaihlo for retarding
pregroee is
an Onlnnl1G true genetic norlt by effects of environment.
confaso «ivironmntal advantage with genetic gain.
toe msklry of
%
oo tmqr time
EnvIronnont nay delicate
or hide tho effects of certain gone corablnatlons, causing tiio breeder to
select scoo anlmlg that he ohould dlecard and discard eoos animls that
he would othondso select*
Fico (1942) shows there is a tendency In Xaab selection to select
lsnhs b o m as singles over these born as twins.
To select Wioso b o m early
over those >x>m late, and to select those Wilch wore lioavler at birth over
the lighter Ianbsf This would tend to select against twinning.
Wc would
also lose oonsiderablo dooirabl© gonotio material by calling late lambs,*
twins, and lanbs from two year old owes,
WorIcors in 'Uxs Bureau of Anlnal Indwstry at tlie Wootern SIieop
Bmedlng Laboratoiy (194/S) developed a Xanb InAsx tailing into consideration
toe gonotlo and ocononic Importance of several traits and in addition
attempts to correct for tlso following cnvironoontol differences.
1# Ago of Ianb at tine of selection*
2. Typo of birth (twin or single)«
3.
Ago of don (2 year old or mature).
It is this index that Is used throughout this study.
10
Tho purpose of applying this index to lanbs at tho 'bntana State
Conoco TTxporlnant Station Io to bettor enable tho workers to m k e -sore
accurate and systonatlc conparioona between oiro groups, bettreon linos
and also between individual I m u s .
11
R E V m ; 0? LimATlBE
Llteratitro on lamb ooloctlon lode-aos la mlntlvoly nonroo,
Llttlo
york hae boon dono or Indexing o!wm as lamatnro as yoonllng lan!>s*
In
v l w of tho lack of literature on lamb IadkndLng It \n\® conaldorecl
tMOeasttr:- to review aone of the preliminary work that IeC to 5to formula­
tion*
PdCG (l%2) ouomarlsoo a project Inaugurated in 1033 batweon the
Bureau of Anlrsal Industry and the Mfceaaoliusetts State College Oxrserimont
Station In which correction factors for typo of birth and so:: wore
developed on the basis of carcass data and afje.
These corrections were
used to standardise the 140 day weights*
Phillips and Dawson (1940) suggested tliat selection may ’:e ado at
a standard age with weights adjusted for the effects of various birth
factors.
TIiooe advantages and disadvantages could ho kept In mind when
evaluating each rnilml*
Tlio weight of all animals could be adjusted to
a standard basis*
Iiaaol and Terrill (1945) describe tho scoring eysten used Iiy the
Western SIieop Breeding laboratory*
Committees of fejo or throe m
'.forking
Independently score each lamb at woaning time for body typo, neck folds
and condition*
also.
Weening weight and staple length are Wzen at tills time
Tho scores given for oach trait Ir/ the two or throe judges wore
averaged,
TIioso previous methods of evaluating lnnlie were stops in the formation
of the present Ianb index used in this study.
12
data
ABD m m m
Date used in this study was taken Hrm 2% woanling Ranboulllot lambs
Ot TJhicli 1^0 u &to Oims mid 64 tjoi1® inns#
Tlioro woro fovor raias tlian owes
Ixioauac somo culling of rams had boon done before staple length noasurenents
VQTQ talxm.
This group raa m d e up of seven lime*
tIaoli lino uaa dooignnt-
od by a number ouch as the 2000 line, the 3000 lino oto. up to the %00 lino.
The lanbo wore scored at weaning tins (September 2) by ooonltteoa of
weperlcmded animl husbozidnon.
A ocodttee of too men writing Independent­
ly scored for face covering, type, and neck folds.
two non scored the lanbs for condition.
merest pound by an additional nan*
taken at tills tine,
A second committee of
The weight* were tol’on to the
Staple length measurements were not
Hie owe side staple length m s telton Janmry 5 and
the ran*s Iiaroh 23, Botit e w and ran noaouremnte were corrected to
weaning age (September 2} Iiy the following formula.
.% fleece neaourmont in on.
age in days when measured
Hto correction was based on tiio assumition that wool grows at a
uniform rate.
Bums (1^31) found that tiio monthly wool growth of Damliouillet owes
m s quite uniform throughout the year.
The minimum and rneadtem monthly
growth varying by only .07 of an inch.
Pohle (1942) found that REuaboulllst lanbs attain about 40;' of their
yearling fleece length at 5 months of ago or abtnrt A0f> of their first year,
Haaol and Terrill (1945) concluded tiiat staple length mist increase
at an average rate of a’-out ,02 cn, per day firm birth to wanning in order
13
to obtain the oboorvod average Ieqgth of 2,66 on, at 124 fnjo of ago,
Kiyaiologiottlly it vottld soon logicnl for wool to crow ooro or loss
unifomly if nutrition and health are nornal.
Por tha four traits omlmtod by soaring, ti e laafc oo-nalderod as
having the highest merit m s given a score of ono and the poorest m s
given a scorn of five,
PlfWon scoring units uero obtained by assigning
plus or minus values to lanba having scows slightly above or below the
titolo unit,
Tlio scores of oooh ocmlttee ware averngxl.
Thsse averaged scorno for the four traits plus weaning might and
staple length wore used in tho la b In ox fomula along with the eon-net,ion
factors for ago, type of birth an’ ago of don.
on the entire group.
The conpletod lndeaeos Varied f t m 36,2 to 15^.1 with
an average of about 122.
below 104.9.
The Index m o calculated
Mo simlated culling of all owe lambs with scores
This mounted to about U& of tho eueo.
An oxyorioncod animal
husbandman simulated culling t';o nano percent of euo Ionic Cron tlie Sans
group by the usual meysteoatieod pbsnotypie uothod,
This consists of
giving the Ianb an ovor all score of fron I to 5 on general cngeartmoo.
Tho
ladbs vitli tha highest merit wore given a score of I and. those of tho
lowest -writ a scorn of 5.
This will bo referred to ns tl» scoring method
throughout t ;o study.
Those having the lotwot merit were culled until a milling figure of
14,23 was roaciiod,
In this c oo it amounted to culling those witli scorns
of 5 plus to 4 inclusive.
This milling was done January 5, 1949,
The selection differentials and expected genetic gains were oorputed
nnd compared for all traits considered In both methods of ooloction.
Tho
14
porcontagea golsctod by linos worn compared also.
TIie Hnoo uero conparod
by avomgod trait scores and nverornd total index scorns for both ewe and
ran lmabs.
Hheare n o m than one rrua van used In a H n e , aim --oro^ony ctrmrinom
m r e m d e by use of averaged trait aeorea ami avero-od index oooreo.
15
Mothodo of Mooring Trrdte
% o o CJovoring eeomd as descrlhod by Tirrill (19/1).
'loom of "In not oovorfid beyoaf t3» noil* w Sb covor^cl to the e^w*
bI b
oowrod slightly below the o^ma but open faced, B4W oovorod below the
eyes but not entirely and Gubt
Ieot to wool blindnoao, n5B almost or entirely
covered and subject to wool bllndneer.
Stable Lonrth
Staple length eeorod as deserlbod by A eHe P o m - 534, Scoro record
Book,
Fleooe length is neasured in eentlnotnro at tba middle of the aiclo,
to the nearest *2 on.
Z s&
Typo scored ns described by AeIIe Fcana » 594* Score Hocord Book.
"Yuoneog to brood a
ocmnco and doolrod mutton eon feme tion| wIm
crocellmit, W2B good, ”3” neditn, ”4” fair, B5W poor.
Condition
Condition scored ao deec-lbod by A,H, F b m «- 534* Score Heoord Book,
Condition or degree of fatness? wIk osscollont, n2n good, n3n rodim,
”4” fair, * 5* poor,
Hoirht
Body weight scored as described by AeHe F o m - 534» Bcoro Record Book,
Body weight to the nearest pound taken at weaning tine,
Uook Folds
Beck folds scored as described by Torrill & Imsel (1946).
16
A cieora of b Im no folds, ”2tt very fov folds of srall or nodoroto also,
n3” folds of nodoroto nun. or or elso, B4n hoavy or large folds of nodorato
or large number, and ”5” completely covered MtZi Zieevy or large folds.
17
Constructing a Solooticai Iadox
Ttio in-lox oonMnos tho valuea o f several traits and corrects for
cavimmantnl factors in one computation.
It gives a ainglo value for
each lctnb, that is representative of its over all merit,
TSio Index used in this study m s construct by workers of toe Bureau
of Aninal Industry at tho Western Shoap Broodin'; laboratory in Idalso, It
was constructed to use on their Rnnbouillot weanling lambs and would not
bo accurate on animals of a differont brooding or ago.
The Imbs used in
this study worn so similar in typo and breeding, and their managosBnt m s
so similar to tlm lanbs the index was construetex5 for, that it was consider­
ed utmncessory to make any t njor index changes,
The inbreeding coefficients for the Exneriuent Stafon flock were not
calculated for all the linos used so corrections for Inbreeding were not
applied,
Tiio inlirooding In this flock was assumed to W
so low that
foiling to correct for It would raize no significant difference in tlas
index score.
Tim nost important factors to consider in constructing a selection
index arc tlie economic importance of each trait and its IwritaMlity,
Tho
value for each unit change in each trait m o calculated by workers in the
Bureau of Anirml Induotrzr. Thla is called the economic value of tlse trait.
Long t l m averages in nar^et prices wore used to calculate the economic
trait valuec,
Tho IieritaMlity figures used were taken from tire Binth
Annual Eoport of tl* Wostom SJiaep Brooding Laboratory, June, .1946, p, 23,
rtQanin,t Wnirrht
The oeonmic value of weaning weight is pEtmrtiy a direct function
13
of -’arkot -rlce n!imo freight reto. Avemfro mrket price was taken ao
'.125 per pound and freight chargee ns $.013 per pound, giving weening
weight an ocononic value of $.112. The relative value of clean wool to
Ianb must W
taken Into consideration also.
A ratio of 10 pounds of Ianb
to I pound of wool was used in constructing this Index.
Pohlo and Kollor (1143) found that I centimeter in yearling fleece
longtli results in alout & pound of clean fleece weight at yearling ago.
Workers of the IXireau of Anlnal Industry (1946) reported sues which
produced staple I centimeter long r than average as yearlings Iiad a Iifot l m staple Ien t$i of ,61 centimeter longer them b vertigo,
One eontlnetor difference in weanling staple length would nean 1.4
pounds more clean wool during the ewes life,
of 51.29 per clean pound gives
Using a long time average
1,63 for added poundage, about ‘>,13 per
owo for increased value das to change in classification minus £.14 for
marketing costs.
T M s completed calculation gives staple length an
economic value of 1.72 per ewe.
Terrill (in44) found tirat O'xm faced cues produced 11,3:' more lanbs
and 11,1 more pounds of I m b per owo bred than those with covered faces.
Witti a score range in face covering of about 2.6 in the flock at the West­
ern Sheep Breeding Liborator- gives each unit of face ocoro 4*3 pounds
of weaning weight per year, or 12,9 pounds for three productive yeasre. At
.112 per pound it gives an economic value for face covering of 1,44 per
unit.
19
"orkora of the Suroau of Aninol Indcmtry (1%6) aoounod a mrketin^
dIfToro go of 32.00 per out. Wtxroon the anoottoot and m a t wrinkled Ianb
at waning M n o « The dlf Wronoe in their Hook amounted to about 2 scoring
unito.
One unit difference in nook fold would ,onn a vnlm difference of
«75 for a 75 pound loob.
Tvpo and CeBdiMan
Type and condition are so interrolatod that they rust be figured
together.
TJse relative econo do value of type and condition was set by using the
averago range in market prices for the best and poorest lambs at the rarkot
vhere sold, Vith an average price of
not be over 35»00 per cwt. or
12.50 per cut* tie market range would
3.75 for a 75 pound lamb.
Tits type and
condition scores in tits flock at the Voatom Shoop Brooding Laboratory
ranged about four scoring units.
Mvldo the market range Iqt the range In
edoring units, arriving at 3.938 as an economic unit value for tyro and
condition <kxnl.)lned« Dividing the
and
."’3 " between the two gives 3*47 for type
.47 for condition.
7!io canplotod index developed Iy Terrill, G. S. and Hasel, L. 2. (1946)
is as follows*
I « 75 - (ISxii') / (TkL) / V / (OmZpeT) / (3x0) - (11x8)
Tito following oorreeMons were applied as needed*
Twins
/ 4.1
IVins raised as singles
/ 1,6
Two year old dens
/ 2,1
20
Aco
~ (*34) (age la days -135)
Iritaroodlnc
/ (*31) (lniaroodlng ooofflciont
In roroo t)
Tha lndeac wag oonstnKsted by a rmltiplo oorrolntdon nothod* using
genotlo nnd pltonotypio oorrolntions bo turnon eaoh pair of traits.
Standard
delations of traits aro found In Tablo VI,
SynbolG for t o Tmlts Used In the Tndccc
Faoo Covering
F
Length of Staple
L
1fowling Weight
W
type Score
T
Gonsltion Sooro
C
Setitc Folds
H
Iridese Score
I
Tho constant of 75 Io added to Insure the Index will be positive and
around I(X),
Demuso the lnbroerllng coefficients were not known for the lanbs used
In t M s study, the correction for Inbreeding could not bo used.
In all other reopooto the Index used In this study m s ldemtltiel to
the one presented above.
For a detailed description of constructing solootlon indexes, aeo work
by Haael (1943) and the HlntIi Annual Report of the Vostom Sheep Breeding
Laboratory, June, 1946. pp 22-2,4,
21
RESULTS
Table I gives the total number of lanba uooci in the study Iy Iina and
by sex.
tion,
Table II shotro a co ’
.parlson of the lines by Ixith methods of selec­
It shows the total number and the percent of exro laeabs culled from
each line by both methods.
each lino.
TatdLe III gives the averaged trait scores for
The sire group comparisons aro given In Table IV,
The selec­
tion differentials and esqpeoted genetic gains for botii methods of
selection are compared in Table V,
Table VI shows tlio Iioritability of eacli
trait used in the index as calculated hp xtor'mra at Western
Laboratory,
method.
Iieep Droo Ing
Table VII and VIII give a comparison of lamtxi culled by each
Tables IX through XIX are self-explanatory.
Hot a U ccmparlsono node on tlio cue lanlis were calculated for too
r a m because toe r a m wore partially selected before all toe necessary
data was collected for this study.
If the r a m were compered with the owes
under those olrcmotanoes it would give a distorted picture of tlie selection
results.
22
TABLE I
NUMBERS CF ^AKLirG LAMBS ESLQ
STS DY gg, LIM-S AKD BY SfX
L M
Laaa
j.iama
Zotai
2000
25
12
37
3000
33
7
40
4000
7
I
8
5000
70
30
100
6000
26
6
32
7000
13
5
18
BOOO
16
4
20
23
Gonpnriaono of Otflling 3uo Lombe by Indrac and OnoyaWatiood Phenotypic
or Sooriny ’ksthod
The heaviest oulliny by tlie scoring nothod as shotm in Sable II m s
In tlie 4000 lino*
The calling peroent of 2 '.63 co-'parod vitii 14*33 Iiy
the Indoz othod, appears to bo unduly high.
BotJis tlie nvoragod trait
scores and the index ooom do not justify tine heavy culling done by the
scoring mtliod.
The D txll nimboro in this line rtty partially account far
tho disomparwy.
Iono were culled fro:: the 3000 I i m by the index method and only one
by tho scoring method.
mtliods.
This I i m received the lightest culling by both
The 3000 lino m s assumed to be one of the lowest in ninount of
Intxroedinc• The Inbrooding coofflclonto were not available so corrections
could not be zaado.
I3y not correcting any of the linos for inbreeding it
gave tho 3000 lino an added advantage by tho lndrac mtliod,
The heaviest culling by Iiio Irzlox mtliod vos shown in the 2000 line*
The index culling figure of 2,33 disagrees with the culling percent of
15*4 by the other mtliod.
In view of the generally louor trait scoros for
this lino, the Indrac appears Justifiable in Its heavier culling.
TIsb cull­
ing differs by about T$> on the 7Q'X) line but the nunbers are low in this
lino also and wider differences dan bo expected.
The sane amount, wore culled from the 5000 and 6000 linos by both
methods*
TIiey also Ggreo In the 3000 line in that both methods showed
tlielr second heaviest culling hero.
24
TABLE II
EIM-S - gyB i JJliZL ^LECTIOi?
SELECTION
ZZtTlO? BY M U M
Index
U m
Total
CipLled
Scoring
Selected
% Culled
Culled
Selected
2000
25
7
18
28.0
4
21
15.4
3000
33
6
27
18.2
7
26
21.1
4000
7
I
6
14.3
2
5
28.6
5000
70
8
62
11.4
8
62
11.4
6000
26
3
23
11.5
3
23
11.5
7000
13
I
12
7,7
2
11
15.4
16
0
16
0 .. .
I
;i5
Totals 190
26
164
27
163
13.6
14.2
25
Coopering 'wo Laabg by Linoa
Table III shove the 2000 line bad t' o moat coTorol faces and Bhotmd tlio
loaat condition.
It also Iiad the lowest index score.
T?kj 3000 lino had tlio liyhtoot Imbs at wotming, tiioued t!so ]x>ore3t
type and hod tlio shortest stapled lie coo.
It mn:od fourth in index scorn.
Tha 4000 line was slightly below s w a g e in ;oat of Its traits and m s
second fro
Lite bottom in index score,
Tlw 5000 lino ranked above average in m a t of its traits and ranked
tliIrd in index score,
Tlio 6000 lino had the m s t neck folds, m o top in condition score
and fifth in index score,
Tlio TOOO lino m o the nost alien faced and above average In all other
traits.
This lino ranked aooonci in index score,
Tlio 3000 line produced by far the heaviest lnnbo, IwI a Iwtter type
scom, WOiD the Rmotlioat, hnd the longest staixle and also t e highest index
rating.
Comparing Ran Lembe hy Liros
The 2000 line produood the Ixmvlest ran lanbe but !xtd tlw nost
covered faces and moat mol: folds.
Its Index score was rooond frcn tiie
botton,
The 3000 lino had the moat open faces, bat the shortest staple.
Tliis
lino ranked second in index score.
The 4000 lino load only one ran loft so the ooo -o m y not bo
roprasontatlvo of t o lino*
Thie ran m s lighter than t!ie average of any
26
other line*
He yns as roeth ng the aWirege of t’.o sraoothest 11m.
He nleo
had an Index scorn lower than t!so average of the poorest lino.
Tho 5000 linn showed the boat t]me and condition* had t?ie longest
staple and Mchoat Index score.
Tho 6000 line vns a little below average in soot traits and ratjJiod
fifth in lndeat score*
The 7900 lino was near average in trait scores and ranked fourth in
index scorn.
Tho '3000 line sZiotrod poorest type and condition bat were m free of
wrinkles as any other line*
Thia line was ranked third in index score.
TABLE I I I
&vt» ag:,-j sccke:.; m
5j& thxits - ^ 4L L iir s
hm
Wt. at
Weaning
Face
Score
Type
.Saar.fi
Keck
IaM
Condition
Score
Staple
Length
Index
Score
Ejfesu
2000
69.3
4.59
2.27
1.10
2.95
3.81
114.0
3000
67.6
3.98
2.39
1.11
2.91
3.26
118.1
4000
69.6
4.17
2.21
1.43
2.91
3.77
114.2
5000
70.4
4.02
2.13
1.12
2.89
3.79
123.4
6000
73.4
4.30
2.23
1.46
2.76
3.65
117.4
7000
72.4
3.88
2.15
1.25
2.93
3.87
126.1
8000
76.2
4.13
2.01
1.03
2.93
4.05
129.5
Rana
selected rams - all lines
Rana
Index
Score
Both
Rame
and
Ewea
2000
83.91
4.62
2.33
1.44
3.11
3.54
124.5
117.1
3000
75.43
3.71
2.38
1.19
3.19
3.09
132.1
120.6
4000
66.00
4.33
2.50
1.00
3.16
3.40
116.3
114.5
5000
83.87
4.22
2.31
1.11
3.06
3.70
134.2
126.6
6000
82.67
4.16
2,42
1.36
3.14
3.30
128.5
119.5
7000
81.20
4.40
2.50
1.16
3.10
4.06
130.2
127.2
8000
79.25
4.25
2.63
1.00
3.21
3.60
131.2
129,0
23
Conncrlng Slro ■rof^ny Groups
Tnblo IV glvea lnia* and individual trait ocr^nrlsona for ixregongr
groups.
TIno female pro^ny of sire 23200? shows superiority over those of
32001 in the 2000 line no shown by the index SOeref Tho individual trait
scorea shotje that 82001 has a tendency to produce lambs with oonsidembly
nore covered faces then B2007 bit prodoees lanbo with better type,
condition, staple longtli and foucr neck foltie*
The 3000 line shows littlo diffomnco In total Index score but no
ustml tliore are xd.de variations in trait scorns.
IUva 83041 produced the
heaviest larvia end those with the most covered faces but produced lorifce
with longest staple.
Ran B3010 produced the liphtost lambs and a quite
short staple.
Enn S5076 Bhoxmcl Blfpiifionnt superiority 3ji its progeny over other
progeny groups in the 9000 lino, as shoun by averaged index score.
The
ran Ianb ?5017 produced only four owe lambs and their average index was
Ioxroot.
The lanbo from tie nature r a m in this line showed nore unifemdty
in trait scores tiian lanbs from any other lino#
The progeny of ran 0L743O Ivxd a much higher axrornge index score than
did the progeny of 01/731% the other sire in the 1000 lino,
His averaged
progeny trait scores were Bumrior in all but condition.
It has been a well known fact for years that the progeny of one sire
differs from the pro -ony of another, bat the degree of difference xms
unmeasurable for most traits.
Because libs docs not always beget liite tie
do not know vrlmt type offspririfl x-dH 1x$ produced#
%
using the index and
individual trait scores wo can compare the progeny of each sire and loam
29
what tholr transmitting abilities ore,
Tlio dri,ta in Table IV can to used to intelligently evaluate the actual
prepotency and breeding value of the m n e In question*
accurate indication of the value of the progeny.
The scorns give an
TABLE IV
AVEriAG--D SCOHKS JV S IRK GROKPS - E«& PUOGElsY
Flock
No, of
No, of Ewe
Ram
Lmbe
Weaning Face
Welrht ••core
Type
Score
Neck
Folda
Condition Staple Index
Score
Lentrfch Score
2000
Line
B2001
11
69,5
5.00
2.20
1.04
2.87
4.02
108,74
B2007
U
69.4
4.11
2.36
1.28
2.94
3.60
118,92
B30a
15
70.0
4.18
2.32
1.11
2.94
3.44
116.44
F3050
7
67.8
3.68
3.38
1.26
2.93
3.15
120.18
B3010
11
64.9
3.81
2.45
1.02
2.98
2.93
119.16
B5039
23
70,65
4.02
2.22
1.16
2.92
3.80
121.78
F 5017
4
74.5
4.33
2.10
1.27
2.88
3,73
115.86
B5031
22
66.45
4.04
2.12
1.03
2.91
3.84
121.85
35076
21
74.68
3.89
2.05
1.17
2.84
3.80
128.71
DL7489
7
80.71
3.86
2.00
1,00
2.95
3.91
136.11
DL7319
9
72.78
4.33
2.02
1.05
2,91
3.66
122.57
3000
Line
5000
Line
8000
Line
Gcr^rxiring Soloetioa by tnc?.ox to Coloction ty Scoring by Uso of Soleotion
DirCarnmtinis -nd Txzectod Ociatle Qain
-
Those seloetod by the scoring r-othod showed a superior oolootion
differential and ixpeeted genetic gain in tyro, conditlm, staple length,
and waning weight ns shorn in Table V.
Selection by Sndosc slioimd a greater selection difforoutial and ex­
pected genetic gain in face covering, neck folds and corrected weaning
weight.
Those results are similar to previous results by t*% % 3, Sheep
Txperirwit Station on all traits but staple length mid tmeorrected waning
weight.
The index Ima previously been superior to scow selection in these
two traits also.
By correcting Wenninl
'; weight for differences in ago of Indb, for twine
and for 2 year old dans, the superiority of selection is switched to the
index method.
This shows that the environmental factors affecting weight
wore taken into consider: it.!on in t'o index,
Uvon though tlte scoring nothod
selected heavier lrobs at weaning their potential nature %oi"hts wore
actually loss,
Bncxrm of tlse high Voriteblllty and economic value of both weaning
weight and staple length the
usually show a higher genetic gain fStm index
selection than soo.-o selection even tdthout any oorreoticm being applied.
Correcting staple length for age of Ianb and age of dam m d e no
significant changes in he selection diffemntiale*
Table VII, VHro Lantia Culled by Index That were Not Oullod by Scoring
and Table VIII, Sue Lrabe Culled by Scoring That Were Hot Culled by Index
32
TARLE V
3:.L1 CTIO' D I F F r R i A L ; ^ APD LXFFCTID Gi LTTC GAII=S*** HER GE;.-UUTI0!I Jg.
im :X SELECTION ATm SELECTION 21 SCORIT=G
Face
Staple Weaning
Lencth Welrht
Advantage of Selected
Lambs
,10
.02
Expected Genetic Gain
,056
.000
Corrected Weaning Weight
Selection Dlff.
1.77
.531
Tvoe
Neck
Condition Folds
.04
.03
.01
.0052
.0012
.0039
.05
.06
«••92
.0065
.0024
-.0078
1.57
Corrected Expected
Genetic Gain
.471
Selection bv Soorinsr
Advantage of Selected
Lambs
,04
.04
Expected Genetic Gain
.0224
.016
Corrected Weaning Weight
Selection Dlff,
Corrected Expected
Genetic Gain
2.31
.693
1,21
.363
* Estimates of how much the selected group are superior to the unaeleoted
groups from which they were chosen.
** Selection differentiala multiplied by herltability of corresponding
trait.
33
TABLE VI
!’!■',ITABILITY AKD STAKDAKD DEVIATIO;':.? C£ EACH TRAIT1
Standard Deviations
Faoe Covering
.56
.61
Staple Length
.40
.46
Weight
.30
8.4*
Type
.13
•4*
Condition
.04
.43
Neek Folds
.39
.77
I Ninth Annual Report of the Western Sheep Breeding Laboratory.
Duboia, Idaho, June, 1946, pp, 22-23.
TABLE VII
EWE LAMBS CULLED BY INDEX THAT WERE HOT CULLED BY SCORING
Flock
Age of
Date of
birth
Age in
number
Type of
nHffi birth
Veaning
weight
Face
(rounds)
Type
score
Heok
fold
Staple
Cond. length
score
Age of
lamb*
corrections
Age of
Tvlnst** dam#*#
H2D02
nature
4-3
152
ewe
twin
60
5.33
2.34
1.00
3.00
4.5
-5.78
Aa
0
98.8
H2004
mature
4-3
152
ewe
twin
62
5.00
2.50
1.00
2.67
3.7
-5.78
Aa
0
97.6
H2040
mature
4-lft
137
ewe
single
64
5.00
2.84
1.00
3.00
3.5
— «68
0
0
101.9
H2054
mature
4-21
134
ewe
single
Rl
5.00
2.34
1.67
2.84
2.6
/ .34
0
0
104.8
R3001
mature
4-1
154
ewe
twin
a
4.66
2.66
1.84
2.84
3.1
Aa
0
88.9
H3041
mature
4-15
140
owe
single
67
4.84
2.34
1.00
2.84
3.2
-1.70
0
0
102.7
H3061
nature
4—21
134
ewe
single
64
5.16
2.66
1.00
3.00
3.8
/ .34
0
0
102.6
H5012
mature
4-2
153
ewe
single
62
4.84
2.34
1.16
3.00
4.1
-6.12
0
0
99.1
H5024
mature
4-4
151
ewe
single
70
5.16
2.66
1.33
3.00 • 4.0
-5.44
0
0
100.6
H5055
2 fra .
4—9
146
ewe
twin
51
4.67
2.50
1.00
3.00
3.7
-3.74
Aa
/2.1
94.3
H50?m
mature
4—12
143
ewe
twin
63
4.84
2.50
1.50
3.00
2.6
-2.72
Aa
0
93.5
H50S2
mature
4-12
143
eve
twin
56
4.84
2.50
1.00
3.33
3.4
-2.72
' Aa
0
100.2
H50S3
nature
4-12
143
ewe
twin
57
4.84
2.50
2.50
3.16
3.8
-2.72
Aa
0
86.2
R5145
mature
4—20
135
ewe
twin
55
5.16
2.00
1.00
3.00
3.8
0
Aa
0
97.1
R6D45
mature
4-20
135 • ewe
single
ft2
5.00
1.84
2.16
2.67
3.5
0
0
0
104.8
H6051
mature
4-21
134
eve
single
52
4.50
3.16
1.16
3.50
3.8
/ .34
0
0
102,9
Hinz
2 TPS.
4—15
JLtiL- ewe -SlBglS
55
, U J , 1.30
3.5
=1.70 — ,2.. ,,,
*
e#
Age - 135 X (-.34)
Twins A.I
Twins as singles /1.6
Dam 2 yrs. old /2.1
2.66
_25aA
■nr
35
TABLE VIII /
EMK LAMBS CULLED BY SCORING THAT WERE HOT COLLED BI IKDEX
Date of
Flock
Age of
birth
nwiher — dan. . 1948
Age in
Type of
birth
Weaning
weight
Face
Lacore
Type
score
i’eok
fold
score
Staple
Cond. length
score
Icorrections____
Age of
Age of
lamb* -Aaii1W ..
Tnr)Av
H2043
mature
4-1H
137
ewe
twin
57
4.00
2.84
1.00
3.16
4.9
— *68
/4.1
0
125.1
H3003
2 yrs.
4—1
154
ewe
single
62
2.50
2.34
1.00
3.00
3.6
—6,46
9
/2.1
134.3
H3060
nature
4-21
134
ewe
single
73
4.16
2.00
1.00
2.50
3,3
- .34
0
0
118.8
H3069
mature
5-4
121
ewe
single
54
3.16
2.84
1.00
3.00
3.0
/4.76
0
0
121.4
H3070
2 yrs.
5-4
121
ewe
single
58
3.34
2.16
1.00
3.16
2.9
/4.76
0
/2.1
125.2
H3071
mature
5-4
121
ewe
twin
70
3.66
2.34
1.00
3.00
2.5
/4.76
/4.1
0
130.4
H4016
nature
4-15
140
ewe
twin
62
3.83
2.33
1.00
3.33
3.6
-1.70
/4.1
0
123.7
H5049
mature
4—4
147
ewe
twin
57
4.67
2.84
1.00
3.33
3.8
-4.08
/4.1
0
105.3
H5094
mature
4-14
141
ewe
twin
Tl
3.33
2.50
1.00
3.00
3,9
—2.04
/4.1
0
139.4
H5119
mature
4-17
138
ewe
twin
58
3.16
2.34
1.00
2.84
3.3
-1.02
/4.1
0
124.4
H5125
nature
4-17
138
eve
single
54
3.50
2.84
1.00
3.33
3.7
-1.02
0
0
118.1
H 5132
mature
4-14
137
eve
twin
60
3.84
2.33
1.00
2.66
3.3
— ,68
/4.1
0
115.2
H5134
2 yrs.
4-19
136
ewe
single
65
4.00
2.34
1.00
2.66
3.9
- .34
9
/2.1
120.3
05163
2 yrs.
4-26
129
ewe
single
64
3.00
2.33
1.33
2.84
3.3
/2.1
Q
/2.1
130.3
H6033
2 yra.
4-17
138
eve
twin
Tl
4.84
2.84
1.00
3.33
2.9
-1.02
/4.1
/2.1
115.6
H6034
2 yrs.
4-17
138
ewe
twin
57
3.84
2.50
1.00
3.67
3,0
—1,02
/4.1
/2.1
120.0
H703R
2 yra.
4-24
131
ewe
single
59
4.00
2.34
1.66
3.00
3.5
A . 36
0
/2.1
108,6
04017
mature
4-5
150
67
5.00
2.66
1.00
4.0
-5.10
A.1
0
108.1
•
Age - 135 X (-.34)
« Twins / 4.1
**« Dara 2 yrs. old / 2.1
JBG--fo£&3....
TABLE IX
COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AlJD AVERAGED
TRAIT SCORES FOR THE TWO METHODS OF CULLING
Ave. Mt,
at weaning
Iba.
Ave,
Face
Ave.
Ave.
Ave,
Type Keck fold condition
score
score
Age of
Ave,
Age
Type of
in days birth
Ave.
Staple
lenrth
Eue lambs milled by aoorlng that
were not culled by index
seven
2 year
old dams
136.2
10 twins
62,16
3.760
2.484
1.055
3.045
3.46
Ewe laaba culled by Index that
were not milled by scoring
two 2 yr. 142,7
old dams
F twins
62.47
4.911
2.490
1.248
2.991
3.56
37
vero rand# uri to st-nSy t)«i aetml tmlt dlffernnooe In tho t m mthoda of
eelectinf;,
T h a m
ohnrte a)tow that 8,5% nore twine and 29^:1 none Ioabe with 2
;mnr old dsrae t-iem culled by the scoring nethod,
This again dhoye the greater efCoetiveneec of the index in considering
environmental feetorn.
In dealing with eudh emit embers msameeted moults ore freenent,
A trial dulling of about 1% loss than the original culling m s mdo ty
both methods and it increased the expected genetic gain of might by index
selection and decreased tits expected genetic gain of weight by score
selection. Their superiority of genetic gain was shifted ron the score
selecting method to tic inclox selecting method, He can nssmo that
changes in selection noroontagcs would change the selection differentials
on other traits also. Any other percentage of culling m y Imve given
results differing considerable fron those obtained,
Trcn this we nay conclude that the numbers of lambs used in this
experiment were too snail for selection differential comparisons of traits
to bo consistently accurate in indicating the ::erlts of ouch system of
culling, As mmbors increase, ecqparloons vrould become none mild at
various culling rates.
In the original selection Ir/ index in tills otwly, two lambs wore
culled that xroro eonsidombly heavier than the average of the other culled
lambs, 152054 was culled for wool blindness and a very short staple,
86045 m3 culled for wool blindness and wriniaes. TIm ntnlmra being smll
caused this weight difference to sliow up in tls© selection differentials.
The trial ctilling of J S lees titan tiro original Otilllnge didn*t mice
OKjr signlfioant change in the selection differentials for staple Iengtii.
Another trial culling sxty Itavc shown significant differo .co however.
It Ima been roportod
Torrill (1940) in mpahUtohed information
that there is a correlation between orron faces and short atarlo In
ria; bouillot o’lroep. In viov of this there Ie seem justification for tiro
index selecting shorter stapled fleeces tlmn tlio scoring TrotlxxI because it
was oirrorior in selecting open facea.
Results shown t^' selection differentials Jaajr be nielooding when tiro
numbers are srmll, A swe onroft.il study of individual data nay be more
reliable.
Another factor tlmt nay Imve som bearing c ex the accuracy of tiro
results obtained in this study is the difference In date of selection in
tiro two mthodse Selection by index was done Septenber 2, 1348 and
selection by scoring was done January 5» 1249,
It is likely that relative trait scorns m y change as the lanbs
nature, Thoxro would bo a tendency for the twins, tiro younger lanbs and
those with two year old done to show up relatively better when cc .pared
to the older lambs* tiro singles and those with nature Snns at tiro later
date.
A comparison of Table HI, Bwe Iambs Gulled by Indox That Were Hot
Cullod by coring and TalxLe HII * Bee Lanbs Cullod by Scoring That Wore Hot
Cullod by Index* olxy.ro that tiro scoring m ethod culled younger lambs, more
twins and noro lanlro frcn two year old dram, TSrooe difference3 were not
great but were larr;o enough to reverse tiro superiority of tiro two methods
39
in seineting for wight, uhon eorroetiona for the above faotora were mde*
It Ib conceivable that if the two rothods of aoori.n/j had been done at the
seaae date, still no.ro twins, nore lanbe flron
year old dans and o, larrjor
nmbor of yotmcor lambs would have loon eullod tgr the scoring method Vmn
wore aotually culled at the Inter date.
Tills would M v o increased the eaperierity of selection of the Indocc
nethod conpored to the scoring method because still nore twins, lenbe frcei
two year o M dnno and lanba of a yowgor age would M v o Ixxm called lsy the
scoring aysten.
r
Q m o t keep in nind tlint those larabs are not Inferior genetically to
the larger larabs that are older, that were born as singles, or were Svaa
nature dams.
It is not tiie pumose of this study to prove the Sndcrt itself.
TMt
has been done as shown by the increased rate of progress in tlie Raribouillet
band at the Western Sheep Breeding Laboratory.
Thoir ninth Annnnl Rorxrrlr'
states that "it appears that avnr all progress Svoo selection at weaning
ago was increased in the range of 20 to 50 percent 6y use of a selection
index,"
Me found la this study that the lambs culled by scoring by an
experienced anirml huobandraan agreed by only 37 ' with those eullod by the
index,
"lie index having been proven a mmerior nethod of selection,
ohotrs just how far off even the M a t of our animal breeders racy be in
selecting their genet? oellgz superior aniraaln*
Plinth Annual Ee|x>rt of tlio 'astern Slssep Breeding LaMratory, Dubois,
Idaho, J- no, 1946.
40
am m i
election try Index t m oorzpored to eolectioa by oooring^ on 254
weanling Bambotdllst lenba.
Iho culling rate on t’te ovo Imba xm» about 14 percent by botli nothoda,
The two nothotio arjroed on only 37 percent of those culled.
The so!notion
differentials shewed that the scoring nothod did a better job of selecting
for staple length, weaning weight, type and condition while the index
zaethod xrao superior In selecting for face covering, nock folds and corrected
weanlnc weight#
Ttie oorroctlono applied to weaning weight ware for twins,
two year old dam, and for differences in age of tt-ie !ante.
It produced a
weight that m s essentially the lanbs nature potential weight.
Another simulated culling was m d e at I pereaut loss than the original.
The advantage pmvio'isly oliown by ttio scoring rethod for selecting for
weaning weight was now with the indent nothod.
This change in results bp-- a snail change in the culling poroentage
shows that the nuniers of lanbs used in the study wore too snail for
selection differentials to bo consistently aocumt# in indicating tiio orits
of oach method of selection.
A closer oxanlmtion of individual trait
scores nay be of more value whan Uie ntrfx$ra are mall#
A conmrison of lines wore raade by average''! trait scores and averaged
index scoroo.
Tiio average index scores for Uio wre lenba ran from 114 for
the 2000 line to 120.5 for the 9000 line.
The average ran index score
ranged from 116.3 for the 4009 lino to 129 for tho StKX) lino,
Tlie owe lnnbe
rankod from I to 7 in order as followsI 3000, 7000, 5000, 3000, 6000, 4000,
and 2000*
The 3000 lino had the heaviest lanbs, the longest staple and Uic
a
boat typo and nook fold ocoro.
Tha 7000 lino had the loyeot face ecore.
?ho 6090 lino diowed tho Mghost condition but rare tlo Most winkled group,
Iho 3000 line worn tho lightest raid showed the poorest type,
Ihoy
also had the chortoot staple.
The 2000 line had tho nost covered faces and poorest condition score
of the entire group*
Tlio ran lambs wore partially ooleetod bo fora all data vaa taken so
the ran eonparleona are of little value. The fans rated IVon I to 7 in
order as follows» 5000, 3000, 1000, 7000, 6009, 2009 en" 4000.
In cmpnrlnr sire progeny groups by averaged index scarce and a w m g n d
trait scores vo find that t!j© pro;-any of DL7419 had tiie highest index scores,
were heavier, had tho best type and neck fold scorns of any sire progeny
group in the flock,
hem B2007 had a higher progeny group index score than B2001, tho other
siro In tho 2000 lino.
In the 3000 lino ran 93050 raroduced higher scoring offspring than tlie
other two sires in the line,
T!ie progeny of ran 55076 scoral Mgher by index than the other sires
in the 5000 lino.
This group ranked second in averaged Index score,
oonparcd to all c5.ro progeny groups in the flock.
42
IJrRATtBH GIfTD
'* "•
- 534.
F-^corrl 3ook.
J.S.DJI. r.-'»igo S?2f>op reeling Ir,T3stf.;%tloa*
Scoro-
31aek, 1.-I, rtk' Knapps I. Jr., 1936* A Method of Msosurliv* PorfbKamee
In Doef Cattle, Am. 3oc, An. Drocl. 72:77,
Ditroem of AnAml Xnchistrya 1%6.
Annual Report. p» 20.
'Tostom Shoop
roodlng Laboratory, ninth
Dureau of Aninal Industry, 1946.
Annual 'opart, p. 21.
Western Slieep Breeding Laboratory, Miivbh
Bureau of Animal Industry, 1946, Hinth Annual Report of tno hoot m
Breeding Wxiratory. pp. 22-24*
Bureau of Animl Industry, 1946. Ifinth Annual
Breeding Woratory, pp, 23-24,
Shaop
©port of tite ost o m ...-hoop
Burne, R.n. 1931. Itenthly Wool Growth of Itenbouillot Bwez. J. Tax. Inet.
22tT99 - 7107.
Hasel, L.t(. and Torrill C.S., 1745. effects of Jomie Sawiroiviontal Pbetora
on Woenllng Tmlte of Range Renboniltet Lento. J. AnAr. Sei. Al 311340.
Hasol, L.H. and ToiTill, C. ,, 1945* Hffoote of S o * Imrlro uiontal Ibctors
on Veanllng Traits of Rnnge Rambouillet Lambs. J. Anin. Sol, 4»332,
Hnsel, L.B. 1943.
Genetics.
23*476-490.
Fhilllpo, R.y, and -esreco, ¥.11, 1940. S o m Factors Affecting Survival,
Growth and selection of Lanbs, U.3. Dept, Agrt0 Cir. i d . 533,
FoIile, I.f, an ’ Kellar, 11.8» 1943, Staple Length in Halation, to Wool
Production. J. Anln. Sci. Is33-41.
fohlo, S.H, 3942. relationship Between Wonnllng and YemvIing Fleeoo
Choraotoro in Range Shsop. J, Anin. Sci. 3#229*335.
Fohle, ,.I. I '42, RelationflMp Botween Uo tiling and Iearling lilevce
Chcractero In Bange SIvccp. J. Ante, Sci* I 16O.
\
Rice, V.A. 1942. B-roofling and Ir.rprovw:ont of Fbro Animals,
McKiiw-Iiill Jock Co. Ino., Hew York and Loudon.
pp, 665-666,
Rioo, V.
1342, SitKkiiug and Xbprovment of Darr. Animals,
HeGraM-JIlll Book Co., Inc., Hew Yoxic and London,
p. 660.
43
?orrH!, 0.1* nad 'hssl, 1.1. 1%6* H w l W .lllty ol Iaoo Cowriog -md
leak FoMs in anrje Hnahoaillot Inhbe as Imluated by Scoring,
J. ""In. Sc!* 2*170-17%
TorrlXI, Ckdr I, I'l'd. Ibwsc Owe ‘v.g in ::.ango Slieope
. lo.
4 0 *9 ,
orrlll, C.l. IO-fJ;-, Itoro profit in Opoa -Tool xros, Font, Uool Grown*.
1*13#
44
APPENDIX TABLE X
INDEX AND INDIVIDUAL TRAIT SCORES FOR 112000 LINE EWES
I
Flock
Agejof
auafear.
Date of
birth
1949
Weaning
Age in
Type of weight Faee
d a n -JSex
birth lnmmda) score
Type
score
reek
fold
Staple
Cond. length
score
corrections
Age of
Age of
lamb*
Tuimi** 4am***
Index
110.4
H2000
2 jr e .
4-3
152
eve
single
82
5.16
1.67
1.16
2.67
3.6
-5.78
0
A.i
H2002
nature
4-3
152
eve
twin
60
5.33
2.34
1,00
3.00
4.5
-5.78
A.i
0
H2003
nature
4-3
152
eve
twin
74
4.66
2.17
1.00
2.84
3.7
-5.78
A.i
0
H200A
mature
4-3
152
eve
twin
62
5.00
2.50
1.00
2,67
3.7
-5.78
/4.1
0
H2013
mature
4-8
147
eve
twin
80
5.16
1.84
1.00
3.00
3.9
-4.08
ift.6
0
112011
2 y ra ,
4-8
147
ewe
single
52
5.16
2.66
1.00
3.00
4.4
—4.08
0
A.i
H2015
2 yra.
4-8
147
eve
single
76
5.00
2.66
1.00
3.00
4.4
—4.08
0
A.i
118.2
H2016
mature
4—9
146
ewe
single
72
4.50
1.84
1.00
2.50
3.0
-3.74
0
0
106.5
2 yra,
4-11
144
eve
single
77
5.00
2.00
1.00
2.66
5.4
—3.06
0
A.i
124.9
H2024
mature
4-13
142
eve
single
81
4.67
1.50
1.00
2.84
5.2
-2.38
0
0
132.3
R2030
2 yra,
4—14
141
eve
single
87
4.00
2.00
2.33
2.17
3.7
—2,04
0
A.i
120.6
R2035
2 yra.
4—16
139
eve
single
58
4.67
2.16
1,00
2.84
3.6
—1.36
0
A.i
101.5(1)(2)
H2037
mature
4-16
139
eve
twin
63
4.50
2.17
1.00
3.00
3.8
-1.36
A.i
0
113.7
H203P
2 yra.
4-17
138
eve
single
77
3.84
2.00
1 .0 0
3.00
3.4
-1.02
0
A.i
131.0
H2039
mature
4-17
138
eve
single
76
4.33
2.50
1.00
3.00
4.0
—1,32
0
0
127.0
H2D40
mature
4—18
137
eve
single
64
5.00
2.84
1.00
3.00
3.5
— .68
0
0
101.9(1)
H2941
2 yra.
4—18
137
ewe
single
50
4.84
2.33
1.33
3.16
3.1
- .68
0
A.i
87,2(2)
H2042
mature
4—18
137
eve
twin
69
3.50
2.00
1.00
3.50
3.6
— .68
A.i
0
continued next page
98.8(1)
115.9
97.6(1)
116.2
92.5(1)(2)
135.4
45
APPEfiDIX TABLE X (ConVd)
IBDEX AMD INDIVIDUAL TMIT SCORES FOR H2000 LINE EWES
IMte of
birth
104B
Flock
Age of
H2043
mature
4-im
H2047
mature
H2054
H2056
Age in
Tyne of
- birth
Weaning
wight
Faoe
hounds) score
Type
score
Seek
Staple
corrections
fold
Cond1 length Age of
Age of
score —Hscore
le*nh* Tvrlno** Ae— S##
,A,liT,,, cm.
-ISSSg
137
ewe
twin
57
4.00
2.84
1.00
3.16
4.9
4“50
135
ewe
twin
72
4.00
2.00
1.00
3.33
3.8
nature
4-21
154
ewe
single
SI
5.00
2.34
1.67
2.84
2.6
mature
4-21
134
ewe
twin
68
4.F4
2.34
1.00
3.16
H2059
mature
4-22
133
ewe
twin
69
4.00
2.50
1.00
H2060
nature
4-22
133
ewe
twin
60
3.67
2.67
1.00
4-26
129
66
5.00
F 2062 .2 ?re.
a£° - 1P x (-.54)
r 4.1
Twine as singles / 1.6
*** Dam 2 yrs. eld / 2.1
*
— m,,. Mncle__
— .68
A.i
0
125.1(2)
A.i
0
131.6
/ .34
0
0
104.8(1)
3.5
/ .34
A.i
0
110.4
3.00
3.5
/ .68
A.i
0
127.2
3.16
3.2
/ .68
A.i
0
122.5
J L 2 L . 3.16
3.2
p
/2.1
-i22*2
(I) Culled bv Index
(2) Culled by eeorlng method
t
0
46
APPENDIX TABLE XI
XlHSX AM) m n VIDOAL TRAIT SCORES POR H3000 LIRE BHBS
Floek
Age of
BiQhSL__&KT...
Date of
birth
Age In
19Z.8 - ... days
Sex
Waning
Faoe
Type of weight
birth
(TXiunda) score
Type
score
Leok
fold
score
Staple
Cond, length
oorrectlonc
Age of
Age of
Tmrlffrir
H3001
mature
A-I
154
ew
twin
61
4.66
2.66
1.84
2.84
3.1
-6*46
/4.1
0
H3002
mature
4—1
154
eve
single
68
4.33
1.83
1.16
3.00
4.3
-6,46
0
0
H3003
2 yrs,
4—1
154
ewe
single
62
2.50
2.34
1.00
3.00
3.6
—6,46
0
/ 2.1
H3004
mature
A-Ix
154
ewe
twin
85
3.33
2.16
1.67
2.67
2.8
-6.46
H300A
mature
4-4
151
ewe
twin
55
4.67
2.84
1.00
3.50
3.7
-5.44
H3010
mature
4-5
150
ewe
twin
74
3.84
2.17
1.00
3.00
3.6
H30U
mature
4-5
150
eve
single
68
3.84 x 2.34
1.16
3.00
«3017
mature
4—8
147
eve
single
77
3.50
2.17
1.00
«3018
mature
4-9
146
ewe
single
84
4.16
1.84
«3025
mature
4-31
144
ewe
twin
a
2.84
«3028
mature
4-11
144
ewe
twin
64
«3031
mature
4-12
143
ewe
twin
«3032
mature
4-12
143
ewe
«3033
mature
4-12
143
«3034
mature
4-14
«3036
mature
«3037
«3039
88.9(1)
113.6
134.3(2)
0
128.6
/4.1
0
102.6(1)(2)
-5.10
A.i
0
129.5
4.0
-5.10
0
0
120.4
2.67
4.1
-4.08
0
0
135.4
1.00
2.34
3.5
-3.74
0
0
125.8
2.16
1.50
2.84
3.2
-3.06
/ 4.1
0
123,9
4.33
3.00
1.00
3.16
2.8
-3.06
/ 4.1
0
110.2
68
4.16
2.00
1,00
2.84
2.9
-2.72
/4.1
0
114.8
twin
65
4.00
2.33
1.00
3.00
3.0
-2.72
/4.1
0
116.3
ewe
single
77
3.67
2.16
1.33
2.50
3.2
-2.72
0
0
122.9
141
ewe
twin
79
3.33
2.34
1.16
2.84
2.7
-2.04
A.i
0
135,8
4-14
141
ewe single
80
3.84
2.16
1.16
2.66
3.6
-2.04
0
0
129.9
mature
4-14
141
owe
twin
77
4.84
2.00
1,00
2.94
3.4
-2.04
A.6
0
115.3
mature
4-15
UO
ewe
twin
64
4.84
2.34
1.00
3.00
3.3
-1.70
A.i
0
105,8
oontinued next page
47
APPENDIX TABLl XI (Oont»d)
INDEX AND INDIVIDDAL TTiAIT SOORB3 FOR HJOOO LINE EWES
-
.
Floek
Age of
H3041
mature
H3042
H3043
H3045
H3047
H3050
H3054
H3059
H3060
H3061
2 yrs.
mature
nature
2 yrs.
mature
mature
mature
mature
mature
R3065
mature
H3069
mature
H3070
2 yrs.
H3071
H3075
mature
o:
birth
Ago in
19X8
.days Sex
4-15
4-15
4—16
4—16
4-17
4-17
4-18
4—21
4—22.
4-21
5-2
5-4
5^4
5-4
.2..7T?, ,Jz5___
Ago - 135 X (-.34)
Twins / 4.1
Twins as single / I,
*** Dam 2 yrs. old / 2.1
**
Type of
birth
140
®w©
140
owe single
single
weIg
fnotn
Face
\■
Type
'Cl/'
fold
Staple
Gond. length
score
cm.
Age of
O'
ona
Age of
dam***
Index
67
4.84
2.34
1.00
2.84
3.2
-1.70
0
0
102.7(1)
55
4.66
2.66
1.33
3.00
3.5
-1.70
0
/2.1
95.4(1)
139
ewe single
61
3.66
2.33
1.00
2.84
4.4
-1.36
0
0
123.2
139
ewe twin
66
4.50
2.84
1.00
3.00
3.2
-1.36
/4.1
0
112.6
138
ewe single
67
4.50
2.50
1.00
3.00
3.3
—1.02
0
/2.1
112.7
138
ewe twin
67
3.34
2.50
1.00
3.00
3.2
—1.02
/1.6
0
128.8
137
ewe twin
65
3.00
3.16
1.00
3,00
2.6
- .68
A.i
0
130.9
134
ewe single
74
3.84
2.34
1.16
2.50
2.8
/ .34
0
0
119.5
134
ewe single
73
4,16
2.00
1.00
2.50
3.3
/ .34
0
0
118.8(2)
134
owe single
64
5.16
2.66
1.00
3.00
3.8
/ .34
0
0
102.6(1)
123
ewe twin
52
5.00
2.67
1.00
3.16
1.8
/4.08
/ 4.1
0
IZL
ewe single
54
3.16
2.84
1.00
3.00
3.0
/4.76
0
0
121.4(2)
88.2(1)(2)
121
ewe single
58
3.34
2.16
1.00
3.16
2.9
/4.76
0
/2.1
125.2(2)
121
ewe twin
70
3.66
2.34
1.00
3.00 . 2.5
/4.76
/4.1
0
130.4(2)
220
ewe single
3.16
/5.1
0
/2.1
7^
(1) Gulled by Ii
(2) Ciflled by sc
3.84
-ZalL-.JUQO
3.2
43
APPENDIX TABLE XII
INDEX AKD INDIVIDUAL TRAIT SCORES FOR R4000 LIKE EWES
Flock
Age of
t o t e of
birth
Age In
Weaning
S ta p le
.on’:
Type of
isjaoore
score
score -JQ ore
aa.
eorreotlona
—todam***
lamb*
Twins** ......
Indez
H4002
mature
4-1
154
eye
twin
49
4.84
2.67 ' 1.00
3.50
3.7
«6.46
A .i
0
H4O05
aattyre
4-2
153
ewe
twin
60
3.83
2.16
1.00
3.00
4.3
-6.12
j&.6
0
117.0
H4007
mature
4-4
151
ewe
single
93
3.50
1.66
1.50
2.16
3.9
—5.44
0
0
138.8
H4012
mature
4-11
144
ewe
single
85
4.50
1.84
2.34
2.34
4.3
—3*06
0
0
113.3
1
92.9(1)(2)
H4015
mature
4-14
141
ewe
single
65
3.84
2.67
1.84
3.00
2.8
—2.04
0
0
104.9
H4016
mature
4-15
140
ewe
twin
62
3.83
2.33
I . (X)
3.33
3.6
-1.79
A.i
0
123.7(2)
8421-
mature
4-26
120
OWO
1InclA
22___ , U A
- 2 . 1 L , ,J U i i - 2.34
3.8
/2 .0 4
9
□
*
Age - 135 X (-.34)
Twine / 4.1
Twins as single / 1*6
*** Dam 2 yrs. old / 2.1
*#
(1) Culled by index
(2) Culled by scoring method
49
APPENDIX TABLE XIII
INDEX AND INDIVIDUAL TRAIT SCORES FOR H5000 LINE EWES
Age of
Flook
mnbgr ..iaa..
Date of
birth
1948
Weaning
Type of weight
Age in
Face
days ...3ex birth (nounda) score
Type
score
Neck
fold
score
Cond.
score
Staple
length
cm.
Age of
lamb*
corrections
Age of
Twins** dam***
I!5001
mature
3-31
155
eve
twin
61
3.33
2.16
1.00
3.00
4.4
—6,8 ■
/4,1
0
128.4
H5005
2 yrs.
4—1
154
eve
single
74
4.67
2.16
1.50
2.50
4.5
-6.46
0
A.i
110,5
H5007
mature
4—1
154
eve
twin
73
2.84
2.16
1.00
2.17
3.8
—6.46
A .6
0
134.4
H 5012
mature
4—2
153
eve
single
62
4*84
2.34
1.16
3.00
4.1
—6.12
0
0
H5014
mature
4-2
153
eve
twin
82
4*34
1.84
1.33
2.67
4.2
-6.12
A ,6
0
124.3
H 5019
mature
4-4
151
eve
twin
96
4.67
2.34
1.16
3.16
4.3
—5.44
/4.1
0
133.2
K5021
mature
4—4
151
ewe
single
77
4.33
2.16
1.33
2.66
2.8
-5.44
0
0
108.7
H5024
mature
4-4
151
ewe
single
70
5.16
2,66
1.33
3.00
4.0
-5.44
0
0
100.6
H 5026
mature
4-4
151
eve
twin
77
3.50
1.50
1.16
3.00
4.4
-5.44
A .6
0
139.3
H5031
mature
4-7
148
ewe
twin
. 67
5.00
2.34
1.00
3.00
3.8
-4.42
A.i
0
107.2
H5033
mature
4-7
148
eve
twin
69
3.84
2.34
1.00
2,67
4.0
-4.42
A .6
0
122.9
H5035
mature
4-6
149
ewe
twin
76
4.§0
2.00
1.16
2.50
2,5
-4.76
A .6
0
105.8
H5039
2 yrs*
4—7
U9
ewe
single
Tl
4.16
2.00
1.00
2.84
4.3
—4.42
0
/2.1
123.8
R5041
mature
4-8
147
eve
single
88
3.16
1.34
1.00
2.50
3.7
-4.08
0
0
147.0
H5042
mature
4-9
147
eve
single
97
4.16
1.50
1.84
2.50
4.0
-4.08
0'
0
133.8
H5046
mature
4-8
147
ewe
twin
76
5.00
1.67
1.00
2.84
3.7
-4.08
A.6
0
111.7
H5049
mature
4—8
147
ewe
twin
57
4.67
2.84
1.00
3,33
3.8
—4*08
A.i
0
105.3(2)
H5051
mature
4-8
147
ewe
twin
88
3.00
1.66
1.00
2.00
3.9
-4.08
A.6
0
148.5
H5055
2 yra.
4-9
146
ewe
twin
51
4.67
2.50
1.00
3.00
. 3.7
-3.74
A.i
/2.1
continued next pape
99.1(1)
94.3(1)
50
APPENDIX TABLE XIII (ConVd)
INDEX AND INDIVIDUAL IBAIT SCORES FOR H5300 LINE EWB9
Bfc V
H5056
H5058
H5061
K5062
H 5064
H5066
H5071
H5076
K5077
H 5079
H5079
H50R0
H5092
H$0R3
H50F7
H5089
H 5001
H5092
H5094
2 yra.
mature
mature
mature
mature
mature
mature
2 yra.
mature
mature
mature
mature
S
4-9
4-9
4—10
4-10
4-10
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-12
4-12
4-12
4-12
mature
4-12
mature
4-12
mature
mature
nature
mature
mature
4-13
4-13
146
ewe
146
ewe
twin
H5
ewe
twin
145
ewe
twin
145
ewe
145
ewe
144
ewe
143
ewe
143
ewe
143
143
143
143
143
142
142
ewe
ewe
ewe
75
65
54
51
A.i
A.i
115.5
4.33
2.17
1.00
3.34
3.7
-3.74
/ 4,1
0
127,8
3.50
2.34
1.00
3.00
4.2
-3.40
A.i
0
131.5
2,34
1.00
3.67
3.7
—3.40
A.i
0
104.9
4.00
2.34
1.00
3.16
3.5
—3,40
A.i
0
IO6.4
1.16
2.50
3.8
-3.40
0
0
153.3
4.67
4.16
1.67
1.50
2.67
3.4
-3.06
0
0
115.9
1.66
1.16
3.00
4.2
-2.72
0
/ 2.1
132.2
2.17
1,00
2.50
3.7
-2.72
0
0
142.6
4,84
2.50
1.50
3.00
2.6
-2.72
A.i
0
3.33
2.66
1.00
3.16
3.2
-2.72
A.i
0
136.1
4.84
2.17
1.00
3.00
3.8
-2.72
A.i
0
114.3
4*84
2.50
1.00
3.33
3.4
-2.72
A.i
0
100.2(1)
4.84
2.50
2.50
3.16
3.8
-2.72
A.i
0
86.2(1)
4.50
2.34
1.16
3.16
3.5
-2.38
Aa
0
108.2
1.66
1.00
2.50
3.3
-2.38
0
0
130.0
3.84
1.50
1.00
2.50
5,0
-2.38
0
0
140.6
4.67
1.83
1.00
2.84
4.7
-2.38
0
3
125.0
2.50
1.00
3.00
3.9
—2.04
A.i
0
139.4(2)
single
single
twin
79
87
63
twin
72
twin
70
twin
61
ewe
single
ewe
-3.74
77
ewe
141
4.7
single
57
ewe
2.84
^ .
2.00
twin
142
1.00
a
2,66
ewe
4-13
2.34
4.50
.
87
56
ewe
a
a
single
twin
142
continued next page
twin
60
owe
4-13
4-H
twin
«
a .
single
single
twin
87
81
77
Tl
4.16
3.50
4.16
3.33
93.5(1)
APPENDIX TABLE XIII (ConVd)
ISDEX AND INDIVIDUAL TRAIT SCORES FOR H5000 LISE EMES
Flock
Age of
Date of
Weaning
birth
Age In
Type of weight
Face
1941?
.Sex .birth (nounds) score
Type
score
Neck
fold
score
Staple
Gond. length
score
cm.
Age of
Iamhg
corrections
Tutna**
Age of
f?a"n*«* Index
H5095
mature
4-14
UL
eve
twin
69
4,33
2.16
1.00
3.67
4.7
-°.04
A.i
0
133,2
H5997
mature
4-15
HO
eve
twin
68
3.16
2.34
1.00
3.00
4.1
-1.70
A,i
0
H O. 6
H5099
mature
4-15
HO
ewe
twin
74
2.66
1.34
1.00
3.00
4.1
-1.70
A.i
0
153.6
H5100
mature
4—15
140
ewe
twin
65
4.16
2.16
1.16
2,67
4.1
-1.70
A.i
0
118.2
H5101
2 yra.
4-15
140
ewe
single
75
3.84
2.00
1.84
3.00
3.3
-1.70
0
/2.1
120.5
H 5106
mature
4-15
HO
ewe
twin
62
4.00
2.34
1.00
3.00
3.3
-1,70
A.i
0
116.4
H5111
mature
4-16
139
eve
single
86
4.50
l.*3
1.16
2,84
3.9
—1.36
0
0
130.1
KSLia
mature
4—16
139
ewe
single
83
3.00
2.00
1.16
2.84
4.6
—1.36
0
0
154.5
H 5115
mature
4—16
139
eve
single
84
2.50
1,84
1.16
2Z4
3.9
-1.36
0
0
158.1
H 5116
mature
4-17
13*
ewe
single
77
4.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
4.0
-1.02
0
0
132.8
H511S
mature
4-17
13*
eve
single
74
3.34
1.83
1.00
3.00
3.9
-1.02 .
0
0
138.9
H 5119
mature
4-17
138
eve
twin
58
3.16
2.34
1.00
2.84
3.3
-1.02
A.i
0
124.4(2)
H5125
mature
4-17
138
eve
single
54
3.50
2.84
1.00
3.33
3.7
-1.02
0
0
118.1(2)
H5126
2 yra.
4-17
138
eve
single
57
4.*4
2.16
1.00
2.67
3.2
-1.02
0
A.i
H5130
mature
4—1-
137
eve
single
69
4.34
1.66
1.00
2.67
4.0
— ,68
0
0
117.3
H5132
mature
4-1*
137
eve
twin
60
3.84
2.33
1.00
2.66
3.3
— .68
A.i
0
115.2(2)
H5133
mature
4-1*
137
eve twin
64
3.67
2.34
1.00
3.00
3.2
— ,68
A.i
0
123.8
H5134
2 yra.
4-19
136
eve single
65
4.00
2.34
1.00
2.66
3.9
- .34
0
/2.1
H5135
mature
4-19
136
eve
74
3.84
2.00
1,00
3.00
3.6
- .34
0
0
continued next page
single
94.1(1) (2)
120.3(2)
130,1
52
APPENDIX TABLE XIII (OontM)
IKDEX AKD INDIVIDUAL TRAIT SOORES FOR H 5000 LIME LUES
Flock
Age of
Date of
blrtii
Age In
Weaning
Type of weight
Face
birth _(pounds) score
Type
score
Neek
fold
score
Staple
Sond. length
score
Age of
lamb*
correctiona
Age of
Tt<4neWW
dam###
H 5141
mature
4-20
135
ewe
twin
55
3.16
2.50
1.16
3.00
3.6
0
/4.1
0
124.1
H5142
nature
4-20
135
ewe
twin
65
3.00
2.50
1.00
3.16
3.6
0
A.i
0
139.6
H 5145
nature
4-20
135
eye
twin
55
5.16
2.00
1.00
3.00
3.8
0
A.i
0
H5149
nature
4-20
135
ewe
single
83
3.66
2,16
1.33
2.84
3.4
0
0
0
135.9
H5150
nature
4-21
134
ewe
twin
85
4.00
2.16
1.16
2.50
3.8
/ .34
i4.6
0
136.6
H5153
nature
4-22
133
eve
twin
70
4.16
2.00
1.00
2.67
4.1
/ .34
A.i
0
126,9
H5156
nature
4-23
132
ewe
twin
63
4*84
2.34
1.00
3.00
4.1
A.02
A.i
0
113.2
H5161
mature
4-24
131
ewe
twin
59
4.00
2.34
1.00
3.50
3.5
A.3 6
A.i
0
121.9
H5163
2 yrs.
4-26
129
ewe
single
64
3.00
2.33
1.33
2.84
3.3
/2.1
0
A.i
H5166
mature
4-27
128
owe
single
81
4.84
2.16
1.10
3.00
4.0
/2.38
0
0
127,6
«5168
mature
5-6
119
ewe
single
79
3.33
1.83
1.00
2.66
3.4
/5.44
0
0
144.2
«5170
nature
5-13
112
ewe
twin
59
4.67
2.33
1.16
3.00
3.3
/7.82
A.i
9
111.I
aaza. -SiftfrEfi
5-17
,JuMl
2.16
-J__
105.7
J L X , JlHB-
Ag® - 135 % (-.34)
** iwlns / 4.1
Twins as single / 1.6
*** Dera 2 yra. old / 2.1
..,.Jfcl
(I) Gulled by Index
(2) Gulled by scoring method
I
J a Z L - 2.67
Q
97.1(1)
130.3(2)
APPENDIX TABLE XIV
IKDEX AND INDIVIDUAL TRAIT SCORES FOR R6000 L I W EMES
Date of
Mrth
I W
Weaning
Type of weight
Face
birth
fnoxinds'I score
Type
score
lleck
fold
score
Staple
Cond, length
em.
soore
eorreotiona
Age of
Age of
I
TtHw***
single
70
4.50
1.66
1.00
2.66
3.5
-6,8
0
/2.1
108,3
ewe
twin
74
3.84
2,00
1.84
2.67
4.3
-4.76
A.i
0
122.8
148
ewe
single
74
2.84
1.83
2.66
2.33
3.8
—4.42
0
0
118.6
4—10
145
ewe
twin
64
4.33
2,84
1.84
3.00
4.2
-3.4
A.6
0
106.5
2 yrs.
4-11
144
ewe
single
79
4.00
2.00
1.50
2.84
3.3
-3.06
0
A.i
126.6
2 yrs,
4—13
142
ewe
single
87
3.84
2.00
1.00
2.84
3.7
-2.38
0
/2.1
142.5
2 yrs.
4—13
142
ewe
single
84
3.50
2,16
1*84
2.16
4.1
-2.38
0
/2.1
132.9
H6023
mature
4-15
140
owe
twin
75
3.84
1.84
1.00
3.00
3.7
-1.7
A.i
0
134.4
H6024
nature
4-15
HO
owe
twin
Tl
3.67
2.16
1.16
3.16
3.4
-1.7
A.i
0
130,6
86028
mature
4-15
HO
ewe
twin
81
5.00
2.16
2.34
2.84
4.0
-1.7
A.6
0
106.7
86029
mature
4—16
139
owe
twin
63
4.33
2.50
1.50
3.00
3.5
—1.36
. A.I
0
108.7
H6032
mature
4—16
139
ewe
twin
60
4.00
2.34
1.33
3.00
3.3
—1.36
A.6
0
108.7
H6033
2 yrs.
4-17
138
ewe
twin
Tl
4.84
2.84
1.00
3.33
2.9
-1.02
A.i
/2.1
115.6(2)
H6034
2 yrs,
4-17
138
ewe twin
57
3.84
2.50
1.00
3.67 / 3.0
-1.02
A.i
/ 2.1
120.9(2)
H6035
mature
4-17
138
ewe
single
84
5.00
1.67
1.50
2.34
4.2
-1,02
0
0
115.2
H6039
nature
4-17
138
ewe
single
77
3.66
2.33
1.33
2.34
3.6
-1.02
0
0
126.2
H6040
mature
4-18
137
owe
single
81
5.00
2.16
1.50
2.00
4.1
— ,68
0
0
109.4
0
0
104.8(1)
0
0
124.3
Flock
Age of
H6000
2 yrs.
3-31
155
owe
H6004
mature
4-6
149
E6006
mature
4-7
H6009
mature
H6012
H6016
H6017
Age In
dare
H6045
mature
4—20
135
ewe
single
82
5.00
1.84
2.16
2.67
3.5
0
R6048
mature
4—20
135
ewe
single
m
4.50
2.17
1.33
2.34
3.4
0
continued next page
.
1
54
APPENDIX TABLE XI? (Cont'd)
IHDKX A-D INDIVIDUAL TRAIT SGOKRS FOR H6000 LIRE E4TS
Date of
Flock Age of birth
mztesL __ d m ____ I ltf .,.
Type of
Weaning
weight
Face
Type
Seek
fold
Oond.
la) aoore aoore
Staple
length
on.
Age of
lamb*
^tiaas_____
Age of
Twins** dam"**
Indeir
H6051
mature
4-21
134
ewe
single
52
4.50
3.16
1.16
3.50
3.8
/ .34
0
0
102,9(1)
H6054
mature
4-22
133
ewe
twin
75
5.00
2.16
1.50
3.00
3.3
/ .34
/4.1
0
110.9
H6056
mature
4-22
133
ewe
twin
65
5.00
2.50
1.67
2.84
3.4
/ .34
/4,1
0
H6057
mature
4-22
133
ewe
twin
70
4.50
2.66
I .50
3.00
3,6
/ .34
/4.1
0
115,7
H605R
mature
4-24
131
eve
single
75
5.00
2.34
1.33
2.16
3.8
/1.36
0
0
106.6
Rto6l
2 yra.
4-2f*
127
ewe
single
F3
4.17
1.34
/2.1
133.0
I16D6Z.
2 '?s.
JbI-
"
*"
Age - 135 X («-.34)
Twins / 4.1
Twins as single / 1.6
#ee Dam 2 yrs. old /2.1
Z
Age In
(1) Otilled by index
(2) OttiLled by scoring method
1.00
2.16
3.7
/2,72
0
98.5(I)(2)
55
APPENDIX TABL5 XV
INDEX AND INDIVIDUAL TRAIT SCORES FOR H7000 LIN5 EWES
Date of
birth
19A8
Flock
number
Age of
dam
H7000
mature
3-31
H7006
2 yrs,
H7009
Age in
days
Weaning
weight Face
Type
Neck
fold
score
Staple
Cond . length
cn.
Age of
Sex
Type of
birth
155
ewe
single
96
3.00
1.34
1.00
2.50
4.4
—6.8
4—1
154
ewe
twin
6T
4.00
2.34
1.16
2.84
4.0
mature
4-3
152
aim
twin
73
4.66
3.00
1.84
3.33
HTOlO
mature
4-4
151
ewe
single
95
2.93
1.84
1.00
HT012
nature
4**
^4
151
ewe
twin
64
3.50
2.34
BTOlT
2 yrs,
4-T
1#
ewe
single
76
3.00
HT019
mature
4-9
146
ew
single
76
HT022
mature
4-11
144
ewe
twin
HT026
mature
4-12
143
ewe
H7027
2 yrs.
4-13
142
HT028
mature
4-13
HT03T
2 yrs,
4-21
HTOim
2 wa.
*
#»
Age of
0
0
159.5
-6.46
/4.1
/2.1
120.6
3.6
-5.78
/4.1
0
109.1
2.67
4.4
-5,44
0
0
154.1
1.00
3.00
3.4
**5»i*4.
/4.1
0
122.9
2.00
1.00
2.84
4.5
-4.42 '
0
/2.1
147.7
4,17
2.16
1.50
2.84
3.4
-3.47
0
0
115.8
96
4.00
2.00
1.34
3.00
3.5
-3.06
A.6
0
134.1
single
75
3.33
2.16
1.00
3.16
4.9
-2.72
0
0
146.7
ewe
single
62
4.16
2.33
1.33
3.00
3.4
-2.38
0
/2.1
123.0
142
ewe
single
66
4*67
2.00
1.16
2.84
3.8
-2,38
. 0
0
105.9
134
owe
single
56
5.16
2.16
1.33
3.00
3.5
/ .34
0
/2.1
-2*1— ./1.36
Q
/2.1
-4=24___ _ 1 & ..
a S0 * 135 X (-.34)
Twins / 4.1
Twins as single / 1,6
*** Dem 2 yrs, old / 2.1
__ZL_..j4»2L- 2.34
(I) Culled by Index
(2) Culled by scoring method
J
A
, 3.00
90.8(1)(2)
108.6(2)
APPENDIX TABLE XVI
IlDBX AND INDIVIDUAL TRAIT SCORES FOR BBOOO LINE EWES
181
Date of
birth
Age in
1948
days
Staple
Cond. length
score
am.
HBOOO
mature
3-30
156
ewe
single
73
4.16
2.16
1.33
3.00
3.9
-7,14
0
0
116.0
18003
mature
3-31
155
ewe
twin
79
4*84
2.00
1.16
3.00
4.1
—6,8
A.i
0
119.4
HSOOA
mature
3-31
155
ewe
twin
77
4.66
2.00
1.00
3.00
4.6
*6.8
A,i
0
125.3
H8006
mature
4—1
154
ewe
single
85
3.84
1.33
1.00
2.33
4.2
-6,46
0
0
133.5
18007
mature
4-2
153
ewe
single
88
4.00
1.66
1.00
2.84
4.3
-6.12
0
0
139.3
H8017
mature
4—5
150
ewe
twin
67
5.00
2.66
1.00
3.00
4.0
-5.10
A.i
0
108.1(2)
Hmzi
mature
4—6
149
ewe
twin
Tl
4.84
2.00
1.00
3.16
4.5
-4.76
A.6
0
116.8
18023
mature
4-7
148
ewe
single
80
3.16
2.17
1.00
3.00
3.0
-4.42
0
0
138.0
18024
mature
4-7
148
ewe
single
87
3.50
2.34
1.00
3.16
3.8
-4.42
0
0
146.9
H8025
mature
4-9
146
ewe
single
82
4.00
1.83
1.00
2.84
4.9
-3.74
0
0
140.0
H8033
mature
4-12
143
ewe
twin
75
4.34
1.67
1.00
2,84
3.7
-2.72
A.i
0
124.6
H8034
mature
4-13
142
ewe
twin
73
3.84
2.00
1.00
2.84
4.1
-2.38
A.i
0
133.3
H8038
mature
4-15
140
ewe
twin
64
4.33
2.16
1.00
3.16
4.3
-1.70
Au
0
121.7
18039
mature
4-15
140
ewe
twin
62
4.00
2.00
1.00
2,66
3.9
-1,70
A.i
0
117.8
HBOAl
mature
4—16
139
ewe
twin
Tl
4.50
2,50
1.00
3.00
3.8
-1.36
A.6
0
119.3
.nature
4-22
139
96
j/IL,, 1.66
1.00
3.00-
3.7
/ .IZ
P
0
Floek
Age of
number.
#
**
a B8 - 135 I (-*34)
twin# r 4*1
Twins sa single / 1,6
*** Dam 2 yrs* old / 2.1
Sex
Weaning
Type of weight
Face
birth (pounds) score
Type
score
jySL. slnrle
(I) Gulled by Index
(2) Culled by scoring method
QgiseglUoqi
Ag* of
lamb*
Age of
Ttrfw***
f$«m***
Index
57
APPENDIX TABLE XVII
IHDEX AND TRAIT SCORES FOR H2090 AKD H3000 LINE RAKS
Flock
Age of
birth
Age in
number __ ,
-124L—
H20ZL
H2023
H2025
H2127
H2031
H2033
H2044
R2046
2 yra.
mature
mature
mature
nature
mature
mature
mature
4-12
143
ram
Type of weight
birth Iswnda)
Faoe
Type
score score
fold
score
to*
Conde length
score
CM*
.....
Age of
IAfSt?*
single
57
5.00
3.00
1.00
3,16
4.5
-2.72
0
3vrryauj.oi]
Age of
/2.1
103.4
4-13
142
ram
single
90
4.50
1.66
1.33
3.00
3.8
-2.38
0 •
0
131.8
4-13
142
ram
single
64
4.16
2.50 - 1.16
3.50
3.3
-2.38
0
0
113.5
4-14
141
ram
twin
f?6
4. «4
2.00
1.00
3.00
3.6
-2.04
A.6
0
127.0
4-15
140
ran
single
75
4.84
2.17
1.84
3.00
3.6
-1.70
0
0
105.6
4—16
139
ram
single
89
5.16
3.00
1.00
3.33
3.7
-1,36
0
0
128.4
136
ram
twin
75
4.50
1.67
1.33
2.67
3.3
- .34
A*6
0
114.1
135
ram
twin
R4
4.50
2.67
1.33
3.33
3.5
0
A.i
0
127.6
0
0
/2.1
137.0
4-19
4-20
2 yro*
4—20
135
ram
single
89
4.50
2.67
1.50
3.33
3.9
H2053
mature
4-21
134
raa
single
91
4.67 ' 2.67
2.16
3.00
3.3
/ .34
0
0
120.6
H2061
2 yrs.
4—24
131
ram
single
88 \
4.34
2.17
1.16
3.00
3.6
A . 36
0
A.I
138.6
4-26
129
ram
single
92
4.84
2.50
2.00
3.00
3.4
/2.04
0
/2.1
125.3
4-11
144
raa
twin
75
2.84
2.16
1.50
3.16
2.5
—3.06
/4.1
0
135.6
4-11
144
ram
twin
55
3.33
2.66
1.00
3.33
2.5
—3.06
A.I
0
115.0
4—14
141
ram
twin
Tl
4.33
2.16
1,67
3.00
3,1
—2,04
A.i
0
111.2
140
ram
twin
79
4.34
2.66
1.00
3.16
3.2
-1.70
A.i
0
129.0
139
ram
twin
81
4.67
2.67
1,00
3.33
3.6
-1.36
A.i
0
130.6
H2050
E2063
H3026
«3029
«3035
H3040
H3046
2 yra.
mature
mature
mature
mature
mature
4-15
4—16
continued next page
)
APi-ENDIX TABLE XVII (Gont'd)
IBDRX AMD TRAIT SGORES FOR H2000 AND IiJOOO LIKE RAfS
Age of
Jam
Age in
Jazg
weight
(rounds)
Face
soore
Type
soore
fold
score
Gond. length Age of
soore
om,_ l&nb*
Twins**
Age of
dam*** TndAY
HJ063
mature
4-25
130
ran
single
74
3.16
2.00
1.16
3.16
3.3
A.7
0
0
139.7
H3074
mature
5-5
120
rm
twin
93
3.33
2.34
1.00
3.16
3.4
/5.1
A.6
0
163.7
**
Age - 135 X (-.34)
Twins / 4,1
Twins as single / 1.6
Dam 2 yrs. old / 2.1
59
APPENDIX TABLES XVUI
B W
Date of
Weaning
birth
Type of weight
Age In
Faoe
1943
(nouaae) score
- d a m . . Sex Mrth
Type
score
III
Flock
Age of
number ..don...
Aim n m m D D A L trait scores for 114000 Aim 125000 life rams
Staple _____ Sgrreqtjpqs,
length 'Age of
Age of
score
IfiSlbe
Ttfinn**
Cm*
Oond,
Index
H4013
mature
4-12
143
ran
twin
66
4*33
2.50
1.00
3,16
3,4
-2.72
/4.1
0-
116.3
H5000
ature
>31
155
ram
twin
68
4.16
2.34
1,00
3*16
3,3
—6,8
/4.1
0
116.2
H5002
mature
4-1
154
ram
twin
31
3.16
1.50
1.00
3.00
4.2
-6*46
/4.1
0
149.2
H5003
mat Te
4-1
154
ram
twin
92
3.16
2.50
1.33
3.00
3.6
-6,46
/4.1
0
152.9
H5009
nature
4—1
154
ram
single
105
3.33
1.84
1.00
3.00
4*6
-6,46
0
0
170,0
H50U
mature
4—2
153
rem
twin
95
4.00
2.34 . 1.33
3.33
3.5
-6.12
/4*1
0
145,4
H 5017
nature
4—3
152
ram
single
95
4.16
1.50
1.00
3.00
4.3
-5.78
0
0
145.5
H5013
nature
4—4
151
ran
twin
73
4.34
2.17
1.00
2.50
3.3
-5,44
0
107.3
H5020
2 yre.
4—4
151
ram
single
93
4.50
3.00
1.00
3.16
3.6
-5 •44
0
/2,1
137.9
H5023
mature
4-4
151
ran
single
35
3.00
1.66
1.33
2.84
3.4
—5.44
0
0
U2.0
H5027
mture
4-5
150
ram
single
100
4.33
2.00
.84
3,00
4.4
-5.10
0
0
151.3
H5037
mature
4-6
149
ram
single
95
4.33
2.34
1,00
3.16
3,9
-4.76
0
0
136,5
«5045
mature
4-3
147
ram
single
104
4.35
1.34
1,00
3.00
4,4
—4,03
0
0
346,9
«5043
mature
4—3
147
ram
twin
Tl
4.16
2.34
1.00
2.84
3.9
-4.03
/ 4,1
0
123,6
«5057
mature
4-9
146
ram
twin
69
5.00
3,00
1.00
3.00
3.9
-3.74
/4.1
0
110.9
«5059
mature
4-10
145
ram
twin
73
5.00
2.00
1,00
3.00
3.9
-3*40
/4.1
0
114.8
«5060
nature
4-10
145
ram
twin
66
5.00
2.33
1,00
3.00
4.0
-3.40
/4.1
0
108.4
«5063
nature
4-10
145
ram
twin
95
4.67
3,16
1,16
3.00
3.3
-3,40
/4.1
0
139.8
continued next page
\
/4.1 '
60
APPENDIX TABLE XVIII (Cort'd)
I R m AND INDIVIDUAL TRAIT SCORES FOR HJiOOO AND H5000 LINE RAMS *
Date of
birth
19AR
Type
Sex
Weaning
Type of weight
Face
birth ioounds) score
Neck
fold
score
Cond. length
score
144
ram
twin
100
4.50
2.16
1.00
3.00
4.0
-3.06
A.6
0
147.9
4-13
142
ram
twin
76
4.50
2.34
1.16
3.16
3.6
-2.38
A.l
0
123.9
mature
4—14
Ul
ram
single
80
3.66
2.34
1.33
3.00
3.6
-2,04
0
0
133.6
mature
4-15
140
ram
twin
83
3.33
2.50
1.00
3.33
3.2
-1.70
A.l
0
149.4
4-15
140
ram
single
84
3.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
3.7
-1.70
0
/2.1
154.1
4-24
131
ram
single
80
3.84
2.00
1.16
2.84
3,2
A.36
0
0
131.9
4-24
131
ram
single
70
4.84
3.00
2.00
3.34
3.4
A.36
0
0
103.5
Flock
number
Age of
H5069
mature
4-11
H50BP
mature
H5093
H50<F
H 5104
H5158
2 yrs.
mature
Age In
dava
corrections
Age of
Age of
V
H5159
nature
H5160
mature
4-24
131
ram
twin
Tl
4.36
2.50
1.00
3.00
3.5
A.36
A.l
0
130.0
H5164
mature
4—26
129
ram
single
85
4.50
2.84
1.67
3.00
3.5
/2.1
0
0
125.8
H5167
mature
5-4
121
ram
single
87
4.50
2.34
1.00
3.00
4.0
/4.76
0
0
141.2
mature
5-13
112
ram
twin
50
5.16
3.00
1.00
3.66
2.3
/7.82
/4.1
4-17
138
ram
twin
95
4.50
2.00
1.00
3.00
4.0
-1.02
A.6
H5171
H5121
mature
• Age - 135 Z (-.34)
** Twins / 4.1
Twins as single / 1.6
*** Dam 2 yrs. old / 2.1
95.1
0
U4.9
%
61
APPENDIX TABLE X U
INDEX AND INDIVIDUAL TRAIT SCORES FOR R6000 . H7000 - HHOOO LINE RAMS
Type
soore
ran
single
102
5.00
1.66
HS
ran
single
89
3.33
4-11
144
ran
twin
SS
2 yrs,
4—13
142
ram
single
H6042
mature
4-19
136
ram
H6349
nature
4—20
135
H7004
nature
4—1
H7005
2 Tra,
HTOOC
corrections
Age of
Age of
Iamh* -wi.jTwine**
dam***
vag.TMi..an..
m m HMP p
1.00
3,00 ' 4.2
-5.10
0
0
HO.O
2.50
1.16
3.00
3.5
—4.42
0
A U
148.4
3.16
2.17
1.33
2.84
3.0
-3.06
A.6
0
H4.1
66
4.30
2,84
1.33
3.66
3.4
-2.38
0
/2.1
120.3
single
TO
4.50
2,16
1.84
2.66
3.0
0
0
100.1
ram
twin
SI
5.00
3.16
1.50
3.66
2.7
A.i
0
118.1
154
ram
single
95
4.84
2,00
1.16
2.33
3,2
-6.46
0
0
119.9
4-1
154
ran
twin
70
3.67
2.84
1.00
3.50
3.8
-6.46
A.i
A.i
134.4
'nature
4—3
152
ram
twin
82
5.00
2.67
1.16
3.33
5.0
-5.78
A.i
0
130,2
RT024
nature
4-12
143
ram
twin
84
3.84
2.34
1.33
3.33
4.0
-2.72
A.i
0
H3.7
H7032
2 yra,
4-15
HO
r&
single
75
4.67
2.66
1.16
3.00
4.3
-1.70
0
/2.1
122.8
HSOOl
mature
3-31
155
ran
twin
93
4.33
2.67
1.00
3.33
4.2
-6.80
A.i
0
146,4
mature
4—5
150
ran
twin
Tl
3.84
2.66
1.00
3.16
3.3
-5.10
A.i
0
125.9
nature
4-12
H3
ras
twin
75
4.34
2.34
1.00
3.00
3.5
-2,72
A,i
0
124.8
...,nature
4-14
_ W l L _ -JS___ 4.40
2.86
1.00
3.31
Age of
..
H6002
nature;
4-5
150
H6005
2 JTS,
4-7
H6014
mature
H6015
H8020
HS032
* Age - 135 X (.,34)
** Tvdne / 4,1
Twine as single / 1,6
**« Dan 2 yra. old / 2,1
___
•
Staple
Cond, length
score
4
Weaning
Tyne of, weight
Faoe
birth (txnmda) score
Hi
:
Date of
birth
Age in
IOAS
-ite..,
Flock
m±£z
0
I
- - U ___ .=3.1% -A»l ___ -J2___ 127.8
M ONTA NA S T A T E U N IV E R SIT Y L IB R A R IE S
3
762 10022698 2
N378
W678
cop. 2
d a t e
—----------- ----- ---------____
92532
Williamson, Leslie 0
Lamb selection by
index
— ------------- ------ —
I S S U E D TO
A /3 T t
Vd>7s
72.532.