Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T01:19:12.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic and environmental factors influencing calf performance in pedigree beef cattle in Britain. 1. The influence of environmental effects on birth, 200-day and 400-day weights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

W. Pabst ,
J. B. Kilkenny  and
H. J. Langholz
W. Pabst
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, and Meat and Livestock Commission
J. B. Kilkenny
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, and Meat and Livestock Commission
H. J. Langholz
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, and Meat and Livestock Commission
Get access

Summary

Data collected on the Meat and Livestock Commission's pedigree recording scheme have been analysed by least-squares procedures to measure the effect of environmental factors on calf performance. In total 5524 birth weights, 16 484 200-day weights and 6248 400-day weights were available for 765 herds and seven breeds. The model adopted included terms representing type of cattle within breed, sex of calf, age of dam, year and month of birth, pre-weaning management, herd average level of performance and herd size as fixed effects with sires as random effects. The model accounted for between 19 and 36% of the variation in birth weights and for 36 to 49% and 39 to 69% of variation in 200- and 400-day weights respectively, depending upon breed. For birth weights and 200-day weights age of dam was a significant effect in all breeds. Sex of calf was the main source of variation at all ages, its relative importance increasing with age. Calves from 2-yr-old dams had 200-day weights 5 to 11% lower and calves out of 3-yr-old dams 2 to 9% lower than calves from 5- to 8-yr-old dams. Month of birth was a significant source of variation in most breeds. Pre-weaning management system was confounded with sex and breed. Correction factors for use in the MLC recording scheme were derived from the data.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , February 1977 , pp. 29 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1977

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

REFERENCES

Brinks, J. S., Clark, R. T., Kieffer, N. M. and Quesenberry, J. R. 1962. Genetic and environmental factors affecting performance traits of Hereford bulls. J. Anim. Sci. 21: 777–780.Google Scholar
Brinks, J. S., Clark, R. T., Rice, F. J. and Kieffer, N. M. 1961. Adjusting birth weight, weaning weight, and preweaning gain for sex of calf in range Hereford cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 20: 363–367.Google Scholar
Brown, C. J. 1960. Influence of year and season of birth, sex, sire, and age of dam on weights of beef calves at 60,120,170 and 240 days of age. J. Anim. Sci. 19: 1062–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cundiff, L. V., Willham, R. L. and Pratt, C. A. 1966. Additive versus multiplicative correction factors for weaning weight in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 25: 983–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedeler, H. J., Haring, F., Langholz, H. J. and Pabst, W. 1973. [Meat production in the German Federal Republic] Züchtungskunde 45: 31–44.Google Scholar
Haas, B. 1972. [Beef cattle breeding in the Rhineland and Westphalia and methods for breed improvement.] Diss. Univ. Bonn.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1970. Estimation of variance and covariance components in the mixed model. Biometrics 26: 485–504.Google Scholar
Koch, R. M. and Clark, R. T. 1955. The influence of sex, season of birth and age of dam on economic traits in range beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 14: 386–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R. M., Cundiff, L. V., Gregory, K. E. and Dickerson, G. E. 1973. Genetic and phenotypic relations associated with preweaning and postweaning growth of Hereford bulls and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 36: 235–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R. M., Gregory, K. E., Ingalls, J. E. and Arthaud, R. L. 1959. Evaluating the influence of sex on birth weight and preweaning gain in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 18: 738–744.Google Scholar
Kramer, C. Y. 1957. Extension of multiple range tests to group correlated adjusted means. Biometrics 13: 13–18.Google Scholar
Marlowe, T. J., Freund, R. J. and Graham, J. B. 1962. Influence of age, breed, flesh condition, nursing, and season on weight and grade of beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 21: 346–354.Google Scholar
Marlowe, T. J. and Gaines, J. A. 1958. The influence of age, sex and season of birth of calf, and ages of dam on preweaning growth rate and type score of beef calves. J. Anim. Sci. 17:706–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1974. Beef Improvement Services to Breeders. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Pabst, W. 1974. [Study of the performance recording scheme for growth rate of beef cattle in Great Britain.] Diss. Georg-August Univ., Gottingen.Google Scholar
Schalles, R. R. and Marlowe, T. J. 1967. Factors affecting test performance of beef bulls. J. Anim. Sci. 26: 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swiger, L. A., Gregory, K. E., Koch, R. M., Rowden, W. W., Arthaud, V. H. and Ingalls, J. E. 1963. Evaluating post-weaning gain of beef calves. J. Anim. Sci. 22: 514–520.Google Scholar
Swiger, L. A., Koch, R. M., Gregory, K. E., Arthaud, V. H., Rowden, W. W. and Ingalls, J. E. 1962. Evaluating pre-weaning growth of beef calves. J. Anim. Sci. 21: 781–786.Google Scholar
Tallack, R. C. M. 1967. Lincoln Red cattle weight recording scheme 1961–1967. Beef Rec. Assoc. Tech. Rep., No. 7.Google Scholar
Taylor, B. R. 1967. The Hereford cattle recording scheme 1964–1967. Beef Rec. Assoc. Tech. Rep., No. 6.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. R. 1968. Report on the Aberdeen-Angus cattle weight recording scheme 1961–1967. Beef Rec. Assoc. Tech. Rep., No. 8.Google Scholar