Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:56:03.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. R. Southgate ,
G. L. Cook  and
A. J. Kempster
J. R. Southgate
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
G. L. Cook
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
Get access

Abstract

The live-weight gain and efficiency of food utilization of purebred British Friesian steers and of crossbred steers out of British Friesian dams by Aberdeen-Angus, Charolais, Devon, Hereford, Lincoln Red, Simmental, South Devon and Sussex sires were examined in two beef production systems. One system was similar to the commercial 18-month grass/cereal system (16-month system) and the other to a commercial 2-year system (24-month system). The cattle were slaughtered at a standard level of fatness, determined by the use of the Scanogram ultrasonic machine.

The trial extended over 3 years and a total of 579 cattle were involved.

Data for the two production systems were analysed separately. Adjustment was made to equal age at the beginning of the test and to equal carcass subcutaneous fat concentration.

There were important differences between sire breeds in daily live-weight gain (P < 0.05), the order of performance for the different sire breeds being similar in the two systems. Charolais and Simmental crosses grew fastest, followed by South Devon crosses, and then by the purebred British Friesian and the other native breed crosses. Faster growing sire-breed crosses were generally heavier and older at slaughter; they ate more, and there was no obvious relationship between sire-breed means for growth rate and efficiency. The range in efficiency between sire breeds was 27 g and 17 g live-weight gain per kg digestible organic matter intake for the 16- and 24- month systems respectively. In both systems, Hereford crosses ranked highest and the purebred British Friesian among the lowest. Probability levels for sire breed differences were P < 0.1 (16 month) and P < 0.01 (24 month).

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 1982 , pp. 155 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1982

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

REFERENCES

Allen, D. and Kilkenny, B. 1980. Planned Beef Production. Granada Publishing, London.Google Scholar
Baker, H. K., Bech Andersen, B., Colleau, J., Langholz, H., Legoshin, G., Minkema, D. and Southgate, J. R. 1976. Cattle breed comparison and crossbreeding trials in Europe; a survey prepared by a working party of the European Association of Animal Production. Livest. Prod. Sci. 3: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bech Andersen, B., Liboriussen, T., Kousgaard, K. and Buchter, L. 1977. Crossbreeding experiment with beef and dual-purpose sire breeds on Danish dairy cows. III. Daily gain, feed conversion and carcass quality of intensively-fed young bulls. Livest. Prod. Sci. 4: 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dent, J. W. 1963. Applications of the two-stage in vitro digestibility method to variety testing. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 18: 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, G. C., Jury, K. E., Dalton, D. C. and Langridge, M. 1980. Beef production from the dairy herd. IV. Growth and carcass composition of straight-bred and beef-cross Friesian steers in several environments. N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 23: 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredeen, H. T., 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. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 52: 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, W. N. 1971. Energetic efficiency of beef and dairy steers. J. Anim. Sci. 32: 451–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Harrington, G. 1979. Variation in the carcass characteristics of commercial British cattle of different breeds for slaughter at equal fatness. Meat Sci. 3: 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Owen, M. G. 1981. A note on the accuracy of an ultrasonic technique for selecting cattle of different breeds for slaughter at equal fatness. Anim. Prod. 32: 113–115.Google Scholar
Limousin and Simmental Tests Steering Committee. 1976. Report of the evaluation of the first importation into Great Britain in 1970/71 of Limousin bulls from France and Simmental bulls from Germany and Switzerland. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Lindhe, B. and Henningsson, T. 1968. Crossbreeding for beef with Swedish Red and White cattle. II. Growth and feed efficiency under standardized conditions together with detailed carcass evaluation. Lanthr Högsk. Annlr 34: 517–550.Google Scholar
Smith, G. M., Laster, D. B., Cundiff, L. V. and Gregory, K. E. 1976. Characterization of biological types of cattle. II. Postweaning growth and feed efficiency of steers. J. Anim. Sci. 43: 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winer, B. J. 1971. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, p. 216. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar