Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T19:04:33.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voluntary food intake, live-weight gain, carcass quality and food conversion in contrasting genotypes of weaned suckler-bred bulls finished intensively on a cereal-based diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. J. Hyslop ,
R. Keatinge  and
D. G. Chapple
J. J. Hyslop
Affiliation:
ADAS Redesdale, Rochester, Otterburn, Newcastle upon Tyne NE19 1SB, UK
R. Keatinge
Affiliation:
ADAS Redesdale, Rochester, Otterburn, Newcastle upon Tyne NE19 1SB, UK
D. G. Chapple
Affiliation:
ADAS Rosemaund, Preston Wynne, Hereford HR1 3PG, UK
Get access

Abstract

A bull beef finishing experiment was conducted with the objective of comparing physical performance of constrasting genotypes of suckler-bred bull beef animals finished intensively on a cereal-based diet at approximately 12 to 13 months of age. Nine bulls per genotype were drawn from weaned, bull calves born to one of two dam types (Belgian Blue×Holstein/Friesian (BB) or Simmental×Holstein/Friesian (SIM)) and which had been sired by one of two contrasting sire types (Aberdeen Angus (AA) or Charolais (CH)). Bull calves were weaned at approximately 8 months of age and the finishing experiment ran from approximately 9 months of age until slaughter at 12 to 13 months of age. Cereal-based concentrate diets were offered to all bulls on an ad libitum basis throughout the experimental finishing period. Dry matter intake (DMI), live-weight gain (LWG), food conversion ratio (FCR), and carcass slaughter characteristics were quantified.

Average daily LWG was 2·07, 2·11, 2·34 and 2·65 kg/day, average FCR was 5·14, 5·06, 4·70 and 4·12 kg DMI per kg LWG and average age at slaughter was 387, 381, 374 and 366 days for the AA/BB, AA/SIM, CH/BB and CH/SIM bulls respectively. These figures showed that CH sired bulls grew faster ( P<0·001), finished at an earlier age ( P<0·01) and had better food conversion ratios ( P<0·01) than AA sired bulls. CH sired bulls also produced heavier carcasses (P<0·001) with better conformation ( P<0·001) than AA sired bulls. Average cold carcass weights (CCW) at slaughter were 309, 318, 348 and 365 kg and average conformation scores (15-point scale) at slaughter were 9·28, 10·28, 12·39 and 12·75 for the AA/BB, AA/SIM, CH/BB and CH/SIM bulls respectively. Finished bulls from SIM dams had higher LWGs (P<0·01) and produced heavier carcasses (P<0·05) than bulls from BB dams. No statistically significant differences in fat score (15-point scale) were seen between any of the breed combinations with fat scores of 7·50, 7·25, 6·75 and 6·75 for the AA/BB, AA/SIM, CH/BB and CH/SIM bulls respectively. No significant differences in average daily food intake were observed between breed combinations in the experiment with average daily DMI being 10·6, 10·6, 11·0 and 10·9 kg/day for AA/BB, AA/SIM, CH/BB and CH/SIM bulls respectively.

Overall, there was little evidence to suggest that the rate of bull LWG declined to bring about any meaningful reduction in productivity as average bull live weight increased from approximately 9 months of age until slaughter at 12 to 13 months of age. When finished on a nutrient-rich, cereal-based concentrate diet, excellent animal performance and commercially acceptable carcasses can be produced from the UK suckler herd using genetically superior sires of either traditional UK or continental beef cattle breeds. Results from this study indicate that CH sired bulls out-performed AA sired bulls, especially when produced from SIM cows.

Keywords

bullsfood conversionfood intakegrowthintensive husbandrysuckler herds
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 1 , February 2006 , pp. 117 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

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 Research Council. 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxford.Google Scholar
Allen, D. and Kilkenny, B. 1980. Planned beef production. Granada Publishing Ltd, St Albans.Google Scholar
Amer, P. R., Crump, R. and Simm, G. 1998. A terminal sire selection index for UK beef cattle. Animal Science 67: 445–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, J. S., Thickett, W. S. and Brigstocke, T. D. A. 1986. Performance of Friesian bulls fed intensively with compound food Animal Production 42: 465 (abstr)Google Scholar
Chapple, D. G., Grundy, H. F., Hardy, R., Keatinge, R. and Wilson, D. W. 2003. A comparison of Simmental×Holstein-Friesian and Piemontese×Holstein-Friesian cows in a hill suckler herd. 2. Performance of the progeny during finishing. Irish Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 42: 79–87.Google Scholar
Chapple, D. G., Grundy, H. F., Keatinge, R. and Mann, G. 2000. Comparative performance of Simmental £ Holstein/Friesian and Belgian Blue £ Holstein/Friesian cows in an autumn calving suckler herd. In Beef from grass and forage. British Grassland Society occasional symposium no. 35. pp. 175–178. British Grassland Society, Reading.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. 1995. Voluntary food intake and diet selection in farm animals. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxford.Google Scholar
Fuller, R. 1998. Suckled calf production, second edition. Chal-combe Publications, Lincoln.Google Scholar
Hardy, R. and Meadowcroft, S. 1990. Indoor beef production. Farming Press Books, Ipswich.Google Scholar
Hyslop, J. J., Keatinge, R. and Chapple, D. G. 2003. Liveweight and pre-weaning growth in suckled calves sired by either Aberdeen Angus or Charolais bulls from contrasting autumn-calving continental £ dairy cows over three years. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 2003, p. 97.Google Scholar
Keatinge, R., Chapple, D. G. and Mann, G. E. 1999. Comparative performance of Simmental £ Holstein/Friesian and Belgian Blue £ Holstein/Friesian cows in an autumn calving suckler herd. Proceedings of the suckler cow workers meeting (ed. McLauchlan, W.). Greenmount College, Co. Antrim.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L., Grantley-Smith, M. 1986. National estimates of the body composition of British cattle, sheep and pigs with special reference to trends in fatness: a review. Meat Science 17: 107–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1993. Genstat 5. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden.Google Scholar
Lowman, B. G. 2002. Beef from dairy bulls (meeting market needs). Proceedings of the British Cattle Breeders Club., pp. 22–23.Google Scholar
Maltin, C. A., Sinclair, K. D., Warriss, P. D., Grant, C. M., Porter, A. D., Delday, M. I. and Warkup, C. C. 1998. The effects of age at slaughter, genotype and finishing system on the biochemical properties, muscle fibre type characteristics and eating quality of bull beef from suckled calves. Animal Science 66: 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, S. P., Edmond, S. L. and Witt, M. 2001. Comparison of pressed sugar beet pulp ensiled with dried maize distillers grains against a ration based on barley and soya bean meal for fast finish-ing suckled beef bulls. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science,2001, p. 113.Google Scholar
Marsh, S. P. and Walters, E. 2001. Effect of protein in cereal based rations for continental cross Holstein bulls and heifers. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, p. 114.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 2002. Beef yearbook 2002. MLC, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1984. Analysis of agricultural materials. Reference book no. 427. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Oldham, J. D. and Hodgson-Jones, L. S. 1996. The Langhill project. In Report and herd brochure from the Langhill Dairy Cattle Research Centre. Scottish Agricultural College, Penicuik, Mid-lothian.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. C., Steen, R. W. J., Moore, C. A. and Moss, B. W. 2000. Effects of the ratio of silage to concentrates in the diet on the performance and carcass composition of continental bulls. Animal Science 70: 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullar, D. 1995. Maize gluten and rapeseed meal as protein supplements to barley or wheat for intensively finished Charolais-cross bulls. Animal Science 60: 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigby, I., Bastiman, B. and Perks, D. A. 1988. The development of a suckler beef system for arable farms with limited areas of permanent grassland. In Efficient beef production from grass. British Grassland Society occasional symposium no. 22. pp. 79–86. British Grassland Society, Reading.Google Scholar
Robertson, I. S. and Lowman, B. G. 1978. Bull beef production from suckler herds of traditional breed type. Animal Production 27: 191–200.Google Scholar
Sinclair, K. D., Cuthbertson, A., Rutter, A. and Franklin, M. F. 1998. The effects of age at slaughter, genotype and finishing system on the organoleptic properties and texture of bull beef from suckled calves. Animal Science 66: 329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1994. A comparison of pasture grazing and storage feeding, and the effects of sward surface height and concentrate supplementation from 5 to 10 months of age on the lifetime performance and carcass composition of bulls. Animal Science 58: 209–219.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1998. Effects of pasture grazing or storage feeding and concentrate input between 5.5 and 11 months of age on the performance and carcass composition of bulls and on growth and carcass composition at 620 kg live weight. Animal Science 66: 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, P. C., Robertson, S., Chamberlain, D. G., Livingstone, R. M., Garthwaite, P. H., Dewey, P. J. S., Smart, R. and Whyte, C. 1996. Predicting the metabolizable energy (ME) content of compounded feeds for ruminants. In Recent developments in ruminant nutrition 3 (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 175–195. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar