Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T01:12:13.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and carcass traits of bulls and veal calves of continental cattle breeds 1. Growth and food conversion efficiency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

H. Khalil  and
F. Pirchner
H. Khalil
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Technical University of Munich, Freising-Weihenstephan, West Germany
F. Pirchner
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Technical University of Munich, Freising-Weihenstephan, West Germany
Get access

Abstract

Between six and 11 twin pairs each of the breeds Braunvieh (BV), Fleckvieh (FV), Grauvieh (GV), Pinzgauer (Pi) and Friesians (Fr) were either treated uniformly or separated and fattened to veal or to yearling bull stage. The aim of the experiment was the comparison of Central European breeds and to investigate genotype × rearing system interaction both within and between breeds. Veal calves were slaughtered at about 120 to 150 kg live weight (proportionately about 0·13 of estimated mature weight of bulls) and yearling bulls at 410 to 460 kg live weight, corresponding to proportionately 0·38 of estimated mature weight. In general, the dual-purpose breeds had higher growth rates both absolute (AGR) and relative (RGR) and better food conversion ratios (FCR) than the dairy breed, Friesian, and this was true irrespective of whether correlations were made to constant age, weight, maturity (equal proportion of adult weight) or carcass fatness. However, the early-weaned Friesian calves grew fastest in the early phase of the growing period and this probably reflected their superior appetite.

Interactions between breeds and rearing system (bull v. veal) were significant for RGR and for maturity-corrected FCR which was mainly caused by shifting of the positions of BV and Pi.

The pooled genetic correlations between performance in the different fattening categories were considerably below unity. The twin-pair correlations indicated high heritabilities which are biased by contributions from dominance and maternal environment. While in data corrected to comparable maturity, AGR and RGR were highly positively correlated, their correlation became negative in agecorrected data. The correlations with FCR displayed an equivalent change with sign reversed. The correlations between wither height and heart girth with AGR were positive for age-corrected data but negative or barely positive, respectively, for data corrected to equal maturity. Again, FCR behaved similarly but with sign reversed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , October 1986 , pp. 225 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1986

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

Alps, H., KOGEL, S., Ferstl, R., Rupp, K., Averdunk, G. and Gottschalk, A. 1976. [Fattening performance and carcass characters of Brown Swiss × German Brown crossbreds compared with German Browns. 1. Results of calf fattening experiments.] Bayerisches Landwirtschaftliches Jahrbuch 53: 515–524.Google Scholar
Barber, K. A., Wilson, L. L., Ziegler, J. H., Levan, P. J. and Watkins, J. L. 1981. Charolais and Angus steers slaughtered at equal percentages of mature cow weight. I. Effects of slaughter weight and diet energy density on carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 52: 218–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, J., Hooven, N. W., Warwick, E. J., Hiner, R. L. and Richardson, G. V. 1972. Influence of breed and plane of nutrition on performance of dairy, dual-purpose and beef steers. II. From 180 days of age to slaughter. Journal of Animal Science 34: 1046–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brabander, D. L. De., Boucque, Ch. V., Casteels, M., Aerts, J. V. and Buysse, F. X. 1982. Ability of Holstein-Friesian, Dutch Black and White and Belgian White-Red bull calves for veal and beef production. In Beef Production from Different Dairy Breeds and Dairy Beef Crosses (ed. O'Ferral, G. J. More), pp. 53–68, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, E. B., Batra, T. R., Macleod, G. K. and Grieve, D. G. 1972. Genotype-environment interaction in calf production. I. Growth traits. Journal of Animal Science 35: 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comstock, R. E. and Moll, R. H. 1963. Genotypeenvironment interactions. In Statistical Genetics and Plant Breeding (ed. Hanson, W. H. and Robinson, H. F.), pp. 164–196. National Academy of Science, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Cundiff, L. V., Koch, R. M., Gregory, K. E. and Smith, G. M. 1981. Characterization of biological types of cattle — Cycle II. IV. Postweaning growth and feed efficiency of steers. Journal of Animal Science 53: 332–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzhugh, H. A. and Taylor, St C. S. 1971. Genetic analysis of degree of maturity. Journal of Animal Science 33: 717–725.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaillard, C. 1981. Ergebnisse des Gebrauchskreuzungsversuches 1978-1980 mit Rindern verschiedener Rassen. 1. Abkalbeeigenschaften und Mastleistung. Schweizerische Landwirtschaftliche Monatshefte 59: 57–65.Google Scholar
Hooven, N. W., Bond, J., Warwick, E. J., Hiner, R. L. and Richardson, G. V. 1972. Influence of breed and plane of nutrition on the performance of dairy, dual-purpose and beef steers. I. Birth to 180 days of age. Journal of Animal Science 34: 1037–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, O. and Becker, M. 1971. Universal Futtertabellen. 2. Aufl. Verlag P. Parey, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Kögel, S., Alps, H., Mittelstadt, W. and Eckhart, H. 1978. [Fattening performance and carcass characters of Brown Swiss × German Brown crossbreds in comparison with German Browns. 2. Results of fattening tests of young bulls.] Bayerisches Landwirtschaftliches Jahrbuch 55: 833–842.Google Scholar
Kress, D. D., England, B. G., Hauser, E. R. And Chapman, A. B. 1971. Genetic-environmental interactions in identical and fraternal twin beef cattle. II. Feed efficiency, reproductive performance, conformation score and fat thickness. Journal of Animal Science 33: 1186–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, D. D., Hauser, E. R. And Chapman, A. B. 1971. Genetic-environmental interactions in identical and fraternal twin beef cattle. I. Growth from 7 to 24 months of age. Journal of Animal Science 33: 1177–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liboriussen, T. 1982. Sire breed influence of various beef breeds on calving performance, growth rate, feed efficiency carcass and meat quality. In Beef Production from Different Dairy Breeds and Dairy Beef Crosses (ed. O'Ferral, G. J. More), pp. 82–93, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, I. L. 1969. A world dictionary of livestock breeds, types and varieties. 2nd ed.Technical Communication, Commonwealth Bureau of Animal Breeding and Genetics, No. 8. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Oldenbroek, J. K. 1982. Meat production of Holstein Friesians in comparison to Dutch Friesians and Dutch Red and White. In Beef Production from Different Dairy Breeds and Dairy Beef Crosses (ed. O'Ferral, C. J. More), pp. 45–52. Martinus Nijoff, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohr, K. And Daenicke, R. 1978. Influence of nutrition on the growth pattern of fattening bulls of two different breeds (Friesian and Simmental). In Patterns of Growth and Development in Cattle (ed. Boer, H. De and Martin, J.), pp. 413–422. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. M. And Cundiff, L. V. 1976. Genetic analysis of relative growth rate in crossbred and straightbred Hereford, Angus and Shorthorn steers. Journal of Animal Science 43: 1171–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. M., Fitzhugh, H. A., Cundiff, L. V., Cartwright, T. C. and Gregory, K. E. 1976. A genetic analysis of maturing patterns in straightbred and crossbred Hereford, Angus and Shorthorn cattle. Journal of Animal Science 43: 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. M., Laster, D. B., Cundiff, L. V. and Gregory, K. E. 1976. Characterization of biological types of cattle. II. Postweaning growth and feed efficiency of steers. Journal of Animal Science 43: 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southgate, J. R., Cook, G. L. and Kempster, A. J. 1982. A comparison of the progeny of British Friesian dams and different sire breeds in 16- and 24-month beef production systems. 1. Live-weight gain and efficiency- of food utilization. Animal Production 34: 155–166.Google Scholar
Thiessen, R. B., Hnizdo, E., Maxwell, D. A. G., Gibson, D. and Taylor, St C. S. 1984. Multibreed comparisons of British cattle. Variation in body weight, growth rate and food intake. Animal Production 38: 323–340.Google Scholar
Warwick, E. J., Davis, R. E. and Hiner, R. L. 1964. Response of monozygotic bovine twins to high and low concentrate rations. Journal of Animal Science 23: 78–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, E. J., Putnam, P. A., Hiner, R. L. and Davis, R. E. 1970. Effects of castration on performance and carcass characters of monozygotic bovine twins. Journal of Animal Science 31: 296–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolf, B. 1963. Quantitative inheritance. In Methodology in Mammalian Genetics (ed. Burdette, W. J.), pp. 193–216. Holden-Day, San Francisco.Google Scholar