Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-7j4dq Total loading time: 0.298 Render date: 2022-09-27T06:11:31.255Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Post-weaning growth of Hereford and first-cross heifers grazing three pasture systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Helen Hearnshaw
Affiliation:
NSW Agriculture & Fisheries, Agricultural Research and Advisory Station, Grafton, N.S.W. 2460, Australia
R. E. Darnell
Affiliation:
NSW Agriculture & Fisheries, Agricultural Research and Advisory Station, Grafton, N.S.W. 2460, Australia
R. Barlow
Affiliation:
NSW Agriculture & Fisheries, Agricultural Research and Advisory Station, Grafton, N.S.W. 2460, Australia
Virginia Finch
Affiliation:
NSW Agriculture & Fisheries, Agricultural Research and Advisory Station, Grafton, N.S.W. 2460, Australia

Summary

The post-weaning growth, frame size and body condition of Hereford (H × H), Brahman × Hereford (B × H), Simmental × Hereford (S × H) and Friesian × Hereford (F × H) heifers were evaluated on three pasture systems in each of five years. One group of heifers was grown from weaning (at 8 months of age) to 18 months on the high-pasture system, which included supplementation with grain, while the other two groups were grown to 30 months on pastures of medium or low quality. Pasture effects were large compared with differences between years, with average daily gains between weaning and 18 months of 552, 275 and 97 g/day on high, medium and low pastures, respectively. Genotype had a significant effect on all measurements. Pasture × genotype interaction was significant in most instances. While crosses grew faster and were heavier than H × H on all pastures, S × H were heaviest by 18 months on high pasture, with B × H heaviest at all ages up to 30 months on both medium and low pastures. There was little difference in live weight between B × H and F × H on high pasture, or between S × H and F × H on medium pasture, whereas F × H was heavier than S × H on low pasture. There were concomitant differences in measures of skeletal size, but when adjusted allometrically to a common live weight, pasture effects were removed, while differences between genotypes remained. At a common live weight F × H had the largest height, length and pelvic area, but shared the lowest body condition with S × H. Pelvic height was greatest among B × H heifers, but this cross had similar body length, condition and subcutaneous fat cover to H × H. The pattern of genotype × pasture interaction observed in this study was similar to that observed by Darnell, Hearnshaw & Barlow (1987) for growth rate among contemporary steers located in different environments.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Baker, R. L., Carter, A. H. & Muller, J. P. (1981). Performance of crossbred cows in the Ruakura beef breed evaluation trial. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 41, 254266.Google Scholar
Barlow, R. (1981). Experimental evidence for interaction between heterosis and environment in animals. Animal Breeding Abstracts 49, 715737.Google 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, 217231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, R. & O'Neill, G. H. (1977). Postweaning gain of heifers in a subtropical environment: genotype × nutrition interaction. 3rd International Congress of the Advancement of Breeding Researches in Asia and Oceania 8, 14.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, 13131324.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, 417427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, A. H., Baker, R. L. & Hunter, J. C. (1980). Beef cattle improvement: growth rate and cow performance. Proceedings of the 32nd Ruakura Farmers' Conference, Hamilton, New Zealand, pp. 141153.Google Scholar
Cohen, R. D. H. (1978). The nutrition and production of beef cattle in a sub-tropical environment. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W.Google Scholar
Cohen, R. D. H., Garden, D. L. & Langlands, J. P. (1980) A note on the relationship between live weight and the incidence of oestrus in Hereford heifers. Animal Production 31, 221222.CrossRefGoogle 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, 941955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deland, M. P., Jakes, J. E. & Giles, W. G. (1974). Beef production from Charolais, Brahman and Hereford sired calves under commercial management. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 10, 1720.Google Scholar
Deland, M. P. B., Jakes, J. & Giles, W. (1976). Occurrence of oestrus in Hereford, Charolais and Brahman crossbred heifers. Agricultural Record 3, 2930.Google Scholar
Deland, M. P. B., Ponzoni, R. W. & McNeill, R. W. (1983). Ease of calving, growth and carcass characteristics of crossbred calves in the lower south east of South Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 23, 228234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deland, M. P. B. & Rowe, J. P. (1982). Straightbred Hereford versus two terminal sire systems of beef production. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 14, 610.Google Scholar
Dicker, R. W. & Barlow, R. (1979). Measurement of bush tick infestation in Hereford and first cross heifers. Inaugural Conference of the Australian Association of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Armidale, pp. 169171.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. W. (1974). The relationship between percentage calving and weight at joining in yearling Hereford heifers. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 10, 5558.Google Scholar
Franke, D. E. (1980). Breed and heterosis effects of American Zebu cattle. Journal of Animal Science 50, 12061214.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 Agricultural and Animal Husbandry 12, 231233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, J. E. & Vercoe, J. E. (1984). An analysis of growth of different cattle genotypes reared in different environments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103, 137153.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, 461471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, P. B. (1987). An evaluation of the performance of Simmental × Hereford and Hereford cattle in the Brigalow region of Queensland. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Queensland, Brisbane.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. & Southgate, J. R. (1984). Beef breed comparisons in the U.K. Livestock Production Science 11, 491501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laster, D. B., Smith, G. M. & Gregory, K. E. (1976). Characterization of biological types of cattle. IV. Postweaning growth and puberty of heifers. Journal of Animal Science 43, 6370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, C. R. (1980). Crossbreeding for beef production: experimental results. Journal of Animal Science 51, 11971223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, C. R., Stewart, T. S.., Cartwright, T. C. & Baker, J. F. (1979). Characterization of cattle of a five breed diallel. II. Measures of size, condition and growth in heifers. Journal of Animal Science 49, 432447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijering, A. (1984). Dystocia and stillbirth in cattle – a review of causes, relations and implications. Livestock Production Science 11, 143177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J. H. L. (1981). A comparison of breeds and their crosses for beef production. II. Growth and puberty in heifers. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 839844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, L. E. & Wiltbank, J. N. (1970). Dystocia in beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science 30, 1043 (abstract).Google Scholar
Short, R. E. & Bellows, R. A. (1971). Relationships among weight gains, age at puberty and reproductive performance in heifers. Journal of Animal Science 32, 127131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singleton, W. L., Nelson, L. A., & Huber, D. A. (1973). Factors influencing dystocia of two year old heifers. Journal of Animal Science 37, 251 (abstract).Google Scholar
Sparke, E. J. & Lamond, D. R. (1968). The influence of supplementary feeding on growth and fertility of beef heifers grazing natural pastures. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 8, 425433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulloh, N. M., Truscott, T. G. & Lang, C. P. (1973). An evaluation of the scanogram for predicting the carcass composition of live cattle. School of Agriculture & Forestry, University of Melbourne, Miscellaneous Report, 66 pp.Google Scholar
Turner, H. G. (1975). The tropical adaptation of beef cattle – an Australian study. World Animal Review 13, 1621.Google Scholar
Wiltbank, J. N., Kasson, C. W. & Ingalls, J. E. (1969). Puberty in crossbred and straightbred beef heifers on two levels of feed. Journal of Animal Science 29, 602605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. S. (1968). Breeding patterns in commercial beef herds. 2. Performance following the first joining. Australian Veterinary Journal 44, 487492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Post-weaning growth of Hereford and first-cross heifers grazing three pasture systems
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Post-weaning growth of Hereford and first-cross heifers grazing three pasture systems
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Post-weaning growth of Hereford and first-cross heifers grazing three pasture systems
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *