Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T09:58:13.250Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Hereford and first-cross cows on three pasture systems. II. Growth of Hereford and Brahman sired calves out of mature cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

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

Summary

The preweaning growth of the progeny of mature cows grazing high, medium or low quality pasture was evaluated. The cows were 5–9 years of age at the beginning of the study and were either purebred Hereford (H x H), first-cross Brahman x Hereford (B x H), Simmental x Hereford (S x H) or Friesian x Hereford (F x H). Hereford and Brahman bulls were mated to these cows for three mating seasons commencing in 1982, at Grafton, New South Wales, Australia. Records on 634 calves born over three consecutive years were used.

Most traits were subject to significant sire breed or dam breed effects or their interactions with one or more of the other main effects (pasture, year of birth of calf, cow age and sex of calf). The incidences of calving difficulty and stillbirths were exceptions. Stillbirths (mean of 3·8%) were not affected by any of the effects studied, while calving difficulty was affected only by sex of calf effect (males, 3·9%; females, 0·8%). The mean calving date of Brahman-sired calves was 11·4 days later (P < 0·05) than that of Hereford-sired calves. Differences between Brahman-sired and Hereford-sired calves for weaning weight were not significant for S x H (Brahman, 237 kg; Hereford, 232 kg) and FxH (Brahman, 238kg; Hereford, 238kg) dams. For HxH dams however, calves sired by Brahman were heavier at weaning (205 kg) than those sired by Hereford (193 kg) bulls, while for B x H dams the reverse was true (Brahman, 222 kg; Hereford, 231 kg). For calves with B x H dams average daily gain (ADG) was the same (957 g/day) for each sire breed, while for the other dam breeds, Brahman-sired calves had a higher ADG than Hereford-sired calves (862 v. 779, 1014 v. 946 and 1022 v. 950 g/day for H x H, S x H and FxH, respectively). Calves sired by Brahman bulls had > 90% eyelid pigmentation while Hereford-sired calves had 44–74%. On high quality pasture, the weaning weights and ADG of calves of F x H and S x H dams were higher than those of B x H and HxH dams. On medium quality pasture, weaning weight of calves of crossbred dams (B x H, S x H and FxH) were similar but higher than those of H x H dams. On low quality pasture, mean weaning weight of calves of B x H was higher than those of S x H and F x H dams, which in turn, were higher than that of H x H dams.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 122 , Issue 1 , February 1994 , pp. 131 - 138
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

Anderson, D. E. (1963). Genetic aspects of cancer with special reference to cancer of the eye in the bovine. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 108, 948–962.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, D. E. (1991). Genetic study of eye cancer in cattle. Journal of Heredity 82, 21–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, D. E., Chambers, D. & Lush, J. L. (1957). Studies on bovine ocular squamous carcinoma (“cancer eye”). III. Inheritance of eyelid pigmentation. Journal of Animal Science 16, 1007–1016.CrossRefGoogle 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
Barlow, R., Hearnshaw, H., Arthur, P. F. & Darnell, R. E. (1994). Evaluation of Hereford and first-cross cows on three pasture systems. I. Calf growth and reproductive performance of young cows. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 122, 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. E., Brown, C. J. & Butts, W. T. (1973). Evaluating relationships among immature measures of size, shape and performance of beef bulls. I. Principal components as measures of size and shape in young Hereford and Angus bulls. Journal of Animal Science 36, 1010–1020.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
Carpenter, J. A. Jr., Fitzhugh, H. A., Cartwright, T. C., Thomas, R. C. & Melton, A. A. (1978). Principal components for cow size and shape. Journal of Animal Science 46, 370–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cundiff, L. V., Gregory, K. E., Koch, R. M. & Dickerson, G. E. (1986). Genetic diversity among 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
French, G. T. (1959). A clinical and genetic study of eye cancer in Hereford cattle. Australian Veterinary Journal 35, 474–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, J. E. (1972). Comparative drought resistance of Bos indicus and Bos taurus crossbred herds in Central Queensland. 1. Relative weights and weight changes of maiden heifers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 12, 231–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, K. E., Laster, D. B., Cundiff, L. V., Smith, G. M. & Koch, R. M. (1979). Characterization of biological types of cattle-cycle III. II. Growth rate and puberty in females. Journal of Animal Science 49, 461–471.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
Hearnshaw, H., Darnell, R. E., Barlow, R. & Stephenson, P. D. (1991). Breed of bull effects on calving rate of cows grazing different pastures. Proceedings of Australian Association of Animal Breeding and Genetics 9, 261–264.Google Scholar
Holloway, J. W., Stephens, D. F., Whiteman, J. V. & Totusek, R. (1975). Performance of 3-year-old Hereford, Hereford x Holstein and Holstein cows on range and in drylot. Journal of Animal Science 40, 114–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, M., Cunha, T. J. & Warnick, A. C. (1973). Crossbreeding Beef Cattle. Gainsville: University of Florida Press.Google Scholar
Long, C. R. (1980). Crossbreeding for beef production: experimental results. Journal of Animal Science 51, 1197–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, I. L. (1971). Comparative beef performance of the large cattle breeds of Western Europe. Animal Breeding Abstracts 39, 1–29.Google 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. & Saul, G. R. (1981). A comparison of breeds and their crosses for beef production. I. Birth and weaning traits. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishimura, H. & Frisch, J. E. (1977). Eye cancer and circumocular pigmentation in Bos taurus, Bos indicus and crossbred cattle. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 17, 709–711.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
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. & Kennedy, J. F. (1966). Some observations on the birth weight of beef cattle. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 6, 257–259.Google Scholar
Smith, G. M., Laster, D. B. & Gregory, K. E. (1976). Characterization of biological types of cattle. 1. Dystocia and preweaning growth. Journal of Animal Science 43, 27–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1980). Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrkal Approach, 2nd edn, pp. 172–194. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.Google 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