Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T21:14:10.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of two methods of beef production with Sussex-Ayrshire crosses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

N. White  and
W. Holmes
N. White
Affiliation:
Wye College(University of London), Ashford, Kent
W. Holmes
Affiliation:
Wye College(University of London), Ashford, Kent
Get access

Summary

Two groups of autumn born Sussex-Ayrshire cross cattle balanced for sex were raised from about 400 lb. live-weight to slaughter either on (A) a system based on summer grazing and winter feeding on silage, hay and limited barley or (B) on an indoor system based entirely on concentrates and hay.

Group A produced carcasses which averaged 531 lb. in 616 days with a higher muscle content than Group B whose carcasses weighed 496 lb. after 528 days. Steers grew significantly faster than heifers on both treatments. Maturation of Group A was delayed by scarcity of pasture in September.

From feed intakes, including direct estimates of feed intake on pasture, it was calculated that despite the check suffered by Group A, S.E. per lb. of gain was similar on both treatments and better for steers than heifers.

Since the cost per unit of feed was lower for Group A this group showed the higher margin over direct costs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 1963 , pp. 195 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1963

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

Aitken, J. N. & Crichton, J. A., 1956. The effects of hexoestrol implantations on growth and certain carcass characteristics in fattening steers. Brit. J. Nutr., 10: 220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brookes, A. J. & Hodges, J., 1959. Studies in beef production. I. The effect of level of feeding and breed on the growth and fattening of spring born cattle. J. agric. Sci., 53: 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L., 1960. Faecal index techniques for estimating herbage consumption by grazing animals. Proc. Vlllth int. Grassl. Congr., 1960: p. 438.Google Scholar
Evans, R. E., 1960. Rations for Livestock. Bull. Minist. Agric. (Lond.) no. 48.Google Scholar
Gerrard, F. R., 1958. Recommendations of Agricultural Research Council's group on beef carcass quality studies.Google Scholar
Holmes, W., Jones, J. G. W. & Drake-Brockman, R. M., 1961. The feed intake of grazing cattle. II. The influence of size of animal on feed intake. Anim. Prod., 3: 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kneebone, I. H., Marks, T., McMeekan, C. P. & Walker, D. L., 1950. Evaluation of the chiller beef carcass. N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. Sc., 31A: 3.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. A., 1958. Beef cattle production. Massey Agricultural College (University of New Zealand).Google Scholar
Preston, T. R., 1961. High level feeding of cereals for intensive beef production. J. Frmr. Club, London 1961, 8: 125.Google Scholar
Yeates, N. T. M., 1952. The quantitative definition of cattle carcasses. Aust. J. agric. Res., 3: 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar