Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:05:31.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of cow replacement strategy on cow and calf performance in the beef herd

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2018

S. McCabe ,
R. Prendiville ,
R. Evans ,
N. E. O’Connell  and
N. McHugh Open the ORCID record for N. McHugh [Opens in a new window]
S. McCabe
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland, C15PW93 Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queens University Belfast, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK
R. Prendiville
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland, C15PW93
R. Evans
Affiliation:
Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, Highfield House, Shinagh, Bandon, Co. Cork, Ireland, P72X050
N. E. O’Connell
Affiliation:
Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queens University Belfast, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK
N. McHugh*
Affiliation:
Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland, P61C996
*
†E-mail: noirin.mchugh@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

Two contrasting replacement strategies are used by Irish beef farmers to select replacement females – animals sourced from within the suckler beef herd and sourced from the dairy herd. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of replacement strategy (i.e. beef v. beef×dairy (BDX)) on cow and calf performance using data from the national beef database across a range of beef and dairy breeds. The association between replacement strategy and calving difficulty score, calving interval, weaning weight, weaning price and all carcass traits was investigated using a mixed model. The effect of replacement strategy on cow survival, calving dystocia and calf perinatal mortality was quantified using logistic regression. Beef cows were older (10.92 days; P<0.001) at their first calving, but were 1.15 times (P<0.01) more likely to survive to a subsequent lactation compared with BDX cows. Calving interval was 1.53 days shorter (P<0.001) for BDX compared with beef cows. Greater calving difficulty and calving dystocia was associated with beef cows (P<0.001) relative to BDX. However, BDX were 1.36 times (P<0.001) more likely to have a dead calf at birth relative to beef cows. Calves weaned from BDX were heavier (18.49 kg; P<0.001) at weaning, reached slaughter 12.8 days earlier (P<0.001), had 7.99 kg heavier carcass (P<0.001) and a greater fat score (P<0.001) compared with the progeny of beef cows. Beef cow progeny had a superior conformation score (0.5; P<0.001) and achieved a greater price per kilogram (P<0.001) compared with progeny from BDX. Beef cull cows had a heavier carcass (5.58 kg), superior carcass conformation, greater carcass price per kilogram and greater overall carcass value (P<0.001) than BDX. Results from this study show that replacement strategy is of fundamental importance depending on the type of system implemented by farmers and consideration must be given to the traits of importance within the context of the individual production system.

Keywords

sucklergenotypebreedIrishnational database
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , March 2019 , pp. 631 - 639
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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

AIM 2016. Animal Identification and Movement Bovine Statistics Report. p. 65. Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine, Ireland. Retrieved on 31 July 2017 from https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/animalhealthwelfare/animalidentificationandmovement/AIMStatisticsRpt2016190517.pdf.Google Scholar
Baker, R, Carter, A, Morris, C and Johnson, D 1990. Evaluation of eleven cattle breeds for crossbred beef production: performance of progeny up to 13 months of age. Animal Science 50, 63–77.Google Scholar
Archer, JA, Richardson, EC, Herd, RM and Arthur, PF 1999. Potential for selection to improve efficiency of feed use in beef cattle: a review. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 50, 147–162.Google Scholar
Berry, D, Madalena, F, Cromie, A and Amer, P 2006. Cumulative discounted expressions of dairy and beef traits in cattle production systems. Livestock Science 99, 159–174.Google Scholar
Berry, DP and Evans, RD 2014. Genetics of reproductive performance in seasonal calving beef cows and its association with performance traits. Journal of Animal Science 92, 1412–1422.Google Scholar
BordBia 2015/16. Meat and Livestock Review & Outlook 2015/16. p 68. Retrieved on 17 August 2017 from https://www.bordbia.ie/industry/buyers/industryinfo/meat/Documents/Meat-and-Livestock-Review-and-Outlook-2015-2016.pdf.Google Scholar
Bowman, JC and Susmel, P 1979. The future of beef production in the European community: a seminar in the EEC programme of coordination of research on beef production and land use. Current topics in veterinary medicine and animal science volume 5, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Bown, MD, Muir, PD and Thomson, BC 2016. Dairy and beef breed effects on beef yield, beef quality and profitability: a review. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 59, 174–184.Google Scholar
Connolly, S, Cromie, A and Berry, D 2016. Genetic differences based on a beef terminal index are reflected in future phenotypic performance differences in commercial beef cattle. Animal 10, 736–745.Google Scholar
Crosson, P 2008. The impact of cow genotype on the profitability of grassland-based beef production in Ireland. In Biodiversity and animal feed: future challenges for grassland production. In Proceedings of the 22nd General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Uppsala, Sweden, 9–12 June 2008, 13, pp. 771–773.Google Scholar
Crosson, P, McGee, M and Prendiville, R 2014. Profit drivers for suckler and dairy calf to beef systems. In Joint IGFA/Teagasc Nutrition Event, Portlaoise, Ireland, 27 June 2014. Retrieved on 13 June 2017 from https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2014/Paul_Crossan_PAPER.pdf.Google Scholar
Crosson, P, O’Kiely, P, O’Mara, FP and Wallace, M 2006. The development of a mathematical model to investigate Irish beef production systems. Agricultural Systems 89, 349–370.Google Scholar
Crump, R, Wray, N, Thompson, R and Simm, G 1997. Assigning pedigree beef performance records to contemporary groups taking account of within-herd calving patterns. Animal Science 65, 193–198.Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A, Deland, M and Siebert, B 1990. The production efficiency of cattle of different breed and mature live weight. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 18, 467.Google Scholar
DAFM 2015/2016. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Annual Review and Outlook for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, 117. Retrieved on 18 August 2017 from https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/publications/2016/AnnualReviewOutlook20152016200716.pdf.Google Scholar
Dákay, I, Márton, D, Keller, K, Fördös, A, Török, M and Szabó, F 2006. Study on the age at first calving and the longevity of beef cows. Journal of Central European Agriculture 7, 377–388.Google Scholar
Drennan, M, McGee, M and Keane, M 2008. The value of muscular and skeletal scores in the live animal and carcass classification scores as indicators of carcass composition in cattle. Animal 2, 752–760.Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ and Berry, DP 2006. Factors affecting body condition score, live weight and reproductive performance in spring-calving suckler cows. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 45, 25–38.Google Scholar
Evans, R, Kearney, F, McCarthy, J, Cromie, A and Pabiou, T 2014. Beef performance evaluations in a multi-layered and mainly crossbred population. In Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 18 August 2014, Vancouver, Canada, p. 732.Google Scholar
Goonewardene, LA, Wang, Z, Price, MA, Yang, RC, Berg, RT and Makarechian, M 2003. Effect of udder type and calving assistance on weaning traits of beef and dairy×beef calves. Livestock Production Science 81, 47–56.Google Scholar
Hickey, J, Keane, M, Kenny, D, Cromie, A and Veerkamp, R 2007. Genetic parameters for EUROP carcass traits within different groups of cattle in Ireland. Journal of Animal Science 85, 314–321.Google Scholar
Kirkland, R, Keady, T, Ingram, P, Steen, R, Comerford, J, Patterson, D and Mayne, C 2004. Beef from the suckler herd: 1. Effect of origin of dam genotype on maternal characteristics and performance of progeny. In Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 5–7 April 2004, York, UK, p. 34.Google Scholar
Laster, DB, Glimp, HA, Cundiff, LV and Gregory, KE 1973. Factors affecting dystocia and the effects of dystocia on subsequent reproduction in beef cattle1. Journal of Animal Science 36, 695–705.Google Scholar
McDermott, JJ, Allen, OB, Martin, SW and Alves, DM 1992. Patterns of stillbirth and dystocia in Ontario cow-calf herds. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 56, 47.Google Scholar
McGee, M 2012. Review of Irish suckler cow types: Research perspective. In Suckler Cow Breeding Conference, 11 October 2012, Tullamore, Ireland, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
McGee, M, Drennan, MJ and Caffrey, PJ 2005a. Effect of suckler cow genotype on milk yield and pre-weaning calf performance. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44, 185–194.Google Scholar
McGee, M, Drennan, MJ and Caffrey, PJ 2005b. Effect of suckler cow genotype on energy requirements and performance in winter and subsequently at pasture. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44, 157–171.Google Scholar
McHugh, N, Evans, RD, Amer, PR, Fahey, AG and Berry, DP 2011. Genetic parameters for cattle price and body weight from routinely collected data at livestock auctions and commercial farms. Journal of Animal Science 89, 23–39.Google Scholar
McHugh, N, Fahey, A, Evans, R and Berry, DP 2010. Factors associated with selling price of cattle at livestock marts. Animal 4, 1378–1389.Google Scholar
McHugh, N and Minogue, D 2012. Genetic evaluations, do they work? In Suckler Cow Breeding Conference, 11 October 2012, Tullamore, Ireland, pp. 69–75.Google Scholar
Menissier, F and Foulley, JL 1979. Present situation of calving problems in the EEC: Incidence of calving difficulties and early calf mortality in beef herds. In Calving Problems and Early Viability of the Calf (ed. B Hoffmann, IL Mason and J Schmidt), pp. 30–85. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Murphy, BM, Drennan, MJ, O’Mara, FP and McGee, M 2008a. Post-weaning growth, ultrasound and skeletal measurements, muscularity scores and carcass traits and composition of progeny of five beef suckler cow genotypes. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 47, 27–40.Google Scholar
Murphy, BM, Drennan, MJ, O’Mara, FP and McGee, M 2008b. Performance and feed intake of five beef suckler cow genotypes and pre-weaning growth of their progeny. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 47, 13–25.Google Scholar
Nelson, LA and Beavers, GD 1982. Beef × beef and dairy × beef females mated to Angus and Charolais sires. I. Pregnancy rate, dystocia and birth weight1,2. Journal of Animal Science 54, 1138–1149.Google Scholar
Newman, S and Deland, M 1991. Lifetime productivity of crossbred cows. 2. Age and weight at first oestrus, calf birth weight, assisted calvings, calving interval and reproduction rate. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 31, 293–300.Google Scholar
Pahnish, OF, Brinks, JS, Urick, JJ, Knapp, BW and Riley, TM 1969. Results from crossing Beef × beef and beef × dairy breeds: Calf performance to weaning1. Journal of Animal Science 28, 291–299.Google Scholar
Phocas, F and Laloë, D 2004. Genetic parameters for birth and weaning traits in French specialized beef cattle breeds. Livestock Production Science 89, 121–128.Google Scholar
Prendiville, R and McHugh, N 2014. Live weight, body condition score at breeding, onset of puberty and age at first calving for heifers of high and low maternal index. In Proceedings of Agricultural Research Forum, 10–11 March 2014, Tullamore, Ireland, p.117.Google Scholar
Puillet, L, Agabriel, J, Peyraud, J L and Faverdin, P 2014. Modelling cattle population as lifetime trajectories driven by management options: a way to better integrate beef and milk production in emissions assessment. Livestock Science 165, 167–180.Google Scholar
Reynolds, WL, Bellows, RA, Urick, JJ and Knapp, BW 1986. Crossing beef × beef and beef × Brown Swiss: pregnancy rate, calf survival, weaning age and rate1. Journal of Animal Science 63, 8–16.Google Scholar
Roughsedge, T, Amer, PR, Thompson, R and Simm, G 2005. Development of a maternal breeding goal and tools to select for this goal in UK beef production. Animal Science 81, 221–232.Google Scholar
Syrucek, J, Kvapilik, J, Barton, L, Vacek, M and Stadnik, L 2017. Economic efficiency of suckler cow herds in the Czech Republic. Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská Ekonomika) 63, 34–42.Google Scholar
Zaborski, D, Grzesiak, W, Szatkowska, I, Dybus, A, Muszynska, M and Jedrzejczak, M 2009. Factors Affecting Dystocia in Cattle. Reproduction in domestic animals 44, 540–551.Google Scholar