Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:32:13.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

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

Abstract

In the winter feeding phase of a lifetime study of spring-born cattle managed in a 20-month beef system, a total of four feeding treatments were imposed by increasing the level of concentrate supplement offered with ad libitum grass silage. The objective was to achieve a difference in live weight at the end of the winter of about 25 kg between food treatments. A multifactorial 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 no significant differences between breeds but highly significant (P < 0·001) differences for method of rearing and sex. As a consequence live-weight differences at the end of the winter between breed types (18 kg) were less than the difference between the sexes (23 kg) and for method of rearing (25 kg) although all were highly significant. Although suckled animals had significantly lower growth rates they were still significantly fatter at the end of the winter as were heifers and Hereford crosses. Differences in dry-matter intake were reflected in growth rate.

Plane of winter nutrition had a highly significant effect (P < 0·001) on live weight and condition score at the end of the winter resulting in increments of about 23 kg and 0·12 units of condition for each level of feeding.

Interactions between the main production variables were not significant with the exception of feeding level and method of rearing. Suckled animals showed a significant (Y < 0·001) reduction in winter gain (proportionately 0·85 for that of bucket-reared animals) when offered the same diet. This reduction ranged proportionately between 0·25 and 0·08 for the lowest and highest daily levels of concentrate supplementation respectively. An extra 1 kg concentrates per day was required for suckled animals to achieve similar live-weight gains to bucket-reared animals.

Keywords

beef cattlecarcass compositioncrossbredsrearing methodsex
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , June 1994 , pp. 347 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 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

Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1992. Nutrient requirements of ruminant animals — protein. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 62: 788–835.Google Scholar
Allen, D. M. and Kilkenny, J. D. 1984. Planned beef production. Granada, London.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. and Cox, G. M. 1957. Experimental designs. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Ferrell, C. L. and Jenkins, T. G. 1985. Energy utilization by Hereford and Simmental males and females. Animal Production 41: 53–61.Google Scholar
Fredeen, H., Martin, A. H., Weiss, G. M., Slen, S. B. and Sumption, L. J. 1972. Feedlot and carcass performance of young bulls representing several breeds and breed crosses. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 52:241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geay, Y. and Robelln, J. 1979. Variation of meat production capacity in cattle due to genotype and level of feeding: genotype-nutrition interaction. Livestock Production Science 6: 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gettys, T. W., Henricks, D. M., Burrows, P. M. and Schanbacher, B. D. 1987. Partition of food intake between maintenance and gain among bovine sex phenotypes. Animal Production 44: 209–217.Google Scholar
Haycock, R. E. and Stewart, D. A. 1973. A comparison of the Charolais, British Friesian and Hereford breeds as sires of crossbred single-suckled calves for beef production. Animal Production 17:267–273.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G. and Drennan, M. J. 1987. Lifetime growth and carcass composition of heifers and steers non-implanted or sequentially implanted with anabolic agents. Animal Production 45:359–369.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1990. Genstat 5. National Algorithms Group Ltd, Oxford.Google Scholar
Lowman, B. G., Lewis, M. L., Neilson, D. R., Scott, N. A. and Hunter, E. A. 1991. Complementary influences of exogenous hormone implantation, antibiotic feed addition and supplementary undegradable dietary protein upon the growth, feed intake and carcass characteristics of finishing beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 28:37–52.CrossRefGoogle 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
Lowman, B. G., Scott, N. A. and Somerville, S. H. 1976. Condition scoring of cattle. Revised edition. Bulletin, East of Scotland College of Agriculture, no. 6.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1981. Commercial beef production yearbook 1980-81, pp. 70–72.Google Scholar
Meat Research Institute. 1975. Beef carcasses — methods of dressing, measuring, jointing and tissue separation 1985 (ed. Pomeroy, R. W. and Williams, D. R.), European Association of Animal Production Publication.Google Scholar
Powel, 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. Live-weight gain and efficiency of food utilization. Animal Production 34:155–166.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. Live-weight growth and efficiency of food utilization. Animal Production 35:87–98.Google Scholar
Southgate, J. R., Cook, G. L. and Kempster, A. J. 1988. Evaluation of British Friesian, Canadian Holstein and beef breed × British Friesian steers slaughtered over a commercial range of fatness from 16-month and 24-month beef production systems. 1. Live-weight gain and efficiency of food utilization. Animal Production 46:353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar