Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T01:34:56.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of breed type, sex, method of rearing and winter nutrition on lifetime performance and carcass composition in a 20-month beef system: grazing performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. G. Lowman ,
C. E. Hinks ,
E. A. Hunter  and
N. A. Scott
B. G. Lowman
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, Scottish Agricultural College Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
C. E. Hinks
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ
E. A. Hunter
Affiliation:
Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ
N. A. Scott
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, Scottish Agricultural College Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Abstract

In a lifetime study of spring born cattle managed in a 20-month beef system, four feeding treatments were imposed during the 5-month winter period and two grass heights (low 6 to 8 cm, high 8 to 10 cm) during the subsequent grazing period. Three slaughter weights were imposed over the grazing period, early, mid and late, at an average of 67,110 and 154 days post turn-out. A multi-factorial design was used with three animal factors — maturity (early maturing Hereford crosses v. late maturing Charolais crosses), sex (heifer v. steer) and method of rearing (suckled calves v. bucket-reared calves). There were significant differences in growth rate for both sex and maturity (P < 0·001) and a highly significant negative effect of winter food level on summer growth rate (P < 0·001), the growth rate of food treatment 4 being proportionately 0·61 of that treatment 1.

Sward height significantly influenced summer growth rate (P < 0·001) but showed no interaction with winter food level in any of the three grazing periods. Growth rates increased over the summer but differences between winter food treatments decreased with daily gains for food treatment 4 being proportionately 0·44, 0·81 and 0·84 of food treatment 1 as the grazing season progressed.

Eliminating winter feeding treatment as a factor and including condition score at turn-out as a co-variate improved the variation explained and reduced differences in growth rate for the main effects with only the main effect of grass height remaining significant. This suggests that the condition of animals at turn-out in conjunction with the subsequent grazing sward height provides a simple practical guide to subsequent animal performance.

Keywords

beef cattlecarcass compositionfattening performancegrazing
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , October 1996 , pp. 215 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Drennan, M. J. and Harte, F. J. 1979. Compensatory growth in cattle. Irish journal of Agricultural Research 18: 145–156.Google Scholar
Hill Farming Research Organisation. 1986. Biennial report 1984-1985, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. 1981. Variations in the surface characteristics of the sward and the short-term rate of herbage intake by calves and lambs. Grass and Forage Science 36: 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1990. Genstat 5 reference manual.Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire. Distributed by National Algorithms Group Ltd, Oxford.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. L. J. and Pearce, J. 1964. Some effects of wintering yearling beef cattle on different planes of nutrition. 1. Liveweight gain, food consumption and body measurement changes during the winter period and the subsequent grazing period. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 63: 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowman, B. G., Hinks, C. E., Swift, G., Peebles, K. and Hunter, E. A. 1988. Grass height for finishing cattle. In Efficient beef production from grass (ed. Frame, J.), British Grassland Society occasional symposium, no. 22, pp. 232–234.Google Scholar
Lowman, B. G., Hunter, E. A., Hinks, C. E. and Lewis, M. 1994. Effect of breed type, sex and method of rearing on lifetime performance and carcass composition in a 20-month beef system: effects of winter feeding treatments. Animal Production 58: 347–355.Google Scholar
Lowman, B. G., Scott, N. A., Hinks, C. E. and Hunter, E. A. 1993. Initial growth rates of Charolais cross and Hereford cross steer and heifer calves on two methods of rearing. Animal Production 56: 201–206.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. H., Hull, J. L., Weitkamp, W. H. and Bonilla, S. 1965. Compensatory growth responses of fattening steers following various low energy intake regimes on hay or irrigated pasture. Journal of Animal Science 24: 29–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Donovan, P. B., Conway, A. and O'Shea, J. 1972. A study of the herbage intake and efficiency of feed utilisation of grazing cattle previously fed two winter planes of nutrition. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 78: 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, L. 1973. Factors affecting silage intake in store rations for weaned suckled calves. Experimental Husbandry 24: 114–119.Google Scholar
Southgate, J. R., Cook, G. L. and Kempster, A. J. 1982a. A comparison of the progeny of British Friesian dams and different sire breeds in 16- and 24-month beef production systems. 1. Liveweight gain and efficiency of food utilisation. Animal Production 34: 155–156.Google Scholar
Southgate, J. R., Cook, G. L. and Kempster, A. J. 1982b. A comparison of different breeds and crosses from the suckler herd. 1. Liveweight growth and efficiency of food utilisation. Animal Production 35: 87–98.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1994. A comparison of pasture grazing and storage feeding, and the effects of sward surface height and concentrate supplementation from 5 to 10 months of age on the lifetime performance and carcass composition of bulls. Animal Production 58: 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swift, G., Lowman, B. G., Scott, N. A., Peebles, K., Neilson, D. R. and Hunter, E. A. 1989. Control of sward surface height and the growth of set stocked finishing cattle. Research and Development in Agriculture 6: 91–97.Google Scholar
Wright, I. A., Russel, A. J. F. and Hunter, E. A. 1987. The effects of genotype and post weaning nutrition on compensatory growth in cattle reared as singles or twins. Animal Production 45: 423–432.Google Scholar