Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T01:13:50.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Hereford and first-cross cows on three pasture systems. I. Calf growth and reproductive performance of young cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. Barlow ,
H. Hearnshaw ,
P. F. Arthur  and
R. E. Darnell
R. Barlow
Affiliation:
NSW Agriculture, Agricultural Research and Advisory Station, Grafton, NSW 2460, Australia
H. Hearnshaw
Affiliation:
NSW Agriculture, Agricultural Research and Advisory Station, Grafton, NSW 2460, Australia
P. F. Arthur
Affiliation:
NSW Agriculture, Agricultural Research and Advisory Station, Grafton, NSW 2460, Australia
R. E. Darnell
Affiliation:
NSW Agriculture, Agricultural Research and Advisory Station, Grafton, NSW 2460, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Hereford (H × H), Brahman × Hereford (B × H), Simmental × Hereford (S × H) and Friesian × Hereford (F × H) females born over a 5-year period (1973–77) were placed on pastures of high, medium or low nutritive value at Grafton, New South Wales, Australia, at weaning (7–8 months of age). The first mating of heifers on high pasture was at 15 months (1974) while that on medium and low pastures was delayed until 27 months of age (1975). This paper reports the reproductive performance of these cows up to 5 years of age and the preweaning growth of their calves which were sired by Hereford bulls at Grafton, Australia. In total, 1222 calving records were analysed.

Most traits were subject to interaction between genotype and other main effects (pasture, year of birth of cow, cow age and sex of calf). Eyelid pigmentation was an exception, with calves from B × H cows having more than calves of other genotypes (73 v. 43%). There were significant genotype differences in calving difficulty among 2-year-old heifers only, with H × H (33%) requiring more assistance than F × H (15%) and SxH (10%) heifers, while B × H heifers did not require any assistance. Genotype differences in percentage of calves born and weaned were observed on low pastures only, where B × H (66% born, 65% weaned) exceeded H × H (48%, 39%) and S × H (39%, 38%) cows, with F × H (58%, 50%) cows being intermediate. Calves by H × H cows were the slowest-growing and were the lightest at weaning on all pastures, with mean gains of 759, 604 and 340 g/day, and mean weaning weights of 212, 188 and 110 kg, on high, medium and low quality pastures, respectively. F × H and S × H cows produced the fastest-growing calves on high quality pasture (966 and 936 g/day, respectively) while B × H cows produced the fastest-growing calves on medium (823 g/day) and low (679 g/day) quality pastures. F × H cows weaned the heaviest calves on high quality pasture (274 kg) while F × H and B × H weaned the heaviest calves on medium (230 and 229 kg, respectively) and low (162 and 169 kg, respectively) quality pastures. Differences in body measurements followed a pattern similar to weaning weight.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 122 , Issue 1 , February 1994 , pp. 121 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Barlow, R. (1981). Experimental evidence for interaction between heterosis and environment in animals. Animal Breeding Abstracts 49, 715–737.Google Scholar
Barlow, R. (1985). An introduction to interaction between genotype and environment. Proceedings of the Australian Association of Animal Breeding and Genetics 5, 33–38.Google Scholar
Barlow, R. & O'Neill, G. H. (1978). Performance of Hereford and crossbred Hereford cattle in the subtropics of New South Wales: growth of first-cross calves to weaning. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 29, 1313–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, R. & O'Neill, G. H. (1980). Performance of Hereford and crossbred Hereford cattle in the subtropics of New South Wales: genetic analyses of pre-weaning performance of first-cross calves. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 31, 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, R., Ellis, K. J., Williamson, P. J., Costigan, P., Stephenson, P. D., Rose, G. & Mears, P. T. (1988). Drymatter intake of Hereford and first-cross cows measured by controlled release of chromic oxide on three pasture systems. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 110, 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butson, S., Berg, R. T. & Hardin, R. T. (1980). Factors influencing weaning weights of range beef and dairy-beef calves. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60, 727–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cundiff, L. V., Gregory, K. E., Koch, R. M. & Dickerson, G. E. (1986). Genetic diversity among cattle breeds and its use to increase beef production efficiency in a temperate environment. Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production IX, 271–282.Google Scholar
Darnell, R. E., Hearnshaw, H. & Barlow, R. (1987). Growth and carcass characteristics of crossbred and straightbred Hereford steers. III. Post-weaning growth in seven environments in New South Wales. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 38, 941–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hearnshaw, H., Darnell, R. E., Barlow, R. & Finch, V. (1989). Post-weaning growth of Hereford and first-cross heifers grazing three pasture systems. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 112, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. & Southgate, J. R. (1984). Beef breed comparisons in the U.K. Livestock Production Science 11, 491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R. M., Dickerson, G. E., Cundiff, L. V. & Gregory, K. E. (1985). Heterosis retained in advanced generations of crosses among Angus and Hereford cattle. Journal of Animal Science 60, 1117–1132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lampkin, G. H. & Kennedy, J. F. (1965). Some observations on reproduction, weight change under lactation stress and mothering ability of British and crossbred-Zebu cattle in the tropics. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 64, 407–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, C. R. (1980). Crossbreeding for beef production: experimental results. Journal of Animal Science 51, 1197–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijering, A. (1984). Dystocia and stillbirth in cattle – A review of causes, relations and implications. Livestock Production Science 11, 143–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J. H. L. & Clark, A. J. (1982). The calving difficulty and weaning weights of calves from crossbred and straightbred cows. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 14, 619.Google Scholar
Morris, C. A., Baker, R. L., Hickey, S. M., Johnson, D. L., Cullen, N. G. & Wilson, J. A. (1993). Evidence of genotype by environment interaction for reproductive and maternal traits in beef cattle. Animal Production 56, 69–83.Google Scholar
Newman, S. & Deland, M. P. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, R. W., Lane, P. W., Ainsley, A. E., Bicknell, K. E., Digby, P. G. N., Hardin, S. A., Leech, P. K., Simpson, H. R., Todd, A. D., Verrier, P. J. & White, R. P. (1987). GENSTAT 5 Reference Manual. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Preston, T. R. & Willis, M. B. (Eds) (1974). Intensive Beef Production, 2nd Edn. pp. 210–256. Oxford: Pergamon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutledge, J. J., Robison, O. W., Ahlschwede, W. T. & Legates, J. E. (1971). Milk yield and its influence on 205-day weight of beef calves. Journal of Animal Science 33, 563–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sas (1988). SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 6.03 Edition. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Seifert, G. W. (1971). Ecto- and endoparasitic effects on the growth rates of Zebu crossbred and British cattle in the field. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 22, 839–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Totusek, R. D., Arnett, D. W., Holland, G. L. & Whiteman, J. V. (1973). Relation of estimation method, sampling interval and milk composition to milk yield of beef cows and calf gain. Journal of Animal Science 37, 153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, H. G. & Short, A. J. (1972). Effects of field infestations of gastrointestinal helminths and of the cattle tick (Boophilus microplus) on growth of three breeds of cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar