Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T15:32:43.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of genotype and post-weaning nutrition on compensatory growth in cattle reared as singles or twins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

I. A. Wright ,
A. J. F. Russel  and
E. A. Hunter
I. A. Wright
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0PY
A. J. F. Russel
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0PY
E. A. Hunter
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service, James Clerk Maxwell Building, The Kings Buildings, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ
Get access

Abstract

Thirty-five Charolais × Blue-Grey and Charolais × (Hereford × Friesian) weaned suckled calves which had been reared as either singles or twins and 19 single-reared Luing and Charolais × Luing weaned suckled calves were given silage ad libitum supplemented with either 0·75 or 2·5 kg rolled barley per day during the post-weaning winter. During summer the cattle continuously grazed perennial ryegrass swards. The high level of barley supplementation increased winter live-weight gain by 0·25 kg/day (P < 0·001). During summer the cattle from the low level of feeding gained weight at 0·09 kg/day (P < 0·05) faster than those from the high level of feeding. However, by the end of the summer grazing period the cattle on the low level of feeding were proportionately only 0·97 the weight of the animals on the high level of feeding.

During winter the performance of all genotypes was similar, but at pasture the Luing cattle gained less weight (P < 0·01) than the single-reared Charolais-cross genotypes.

Twin-reared cattle took 55 days longer to reach slaughter condition, but produced carcasses of equal weight and fatness to those from single-reared cattle.

The twin-reared cattle on the high level of feeding and the single-reared cattle on the low level of feeding attained a similar weight, body condition and ultrasonic backfat at turn-out. Thereafter, their herbage intakes and live-weight gains were identical suggesting that previous level of feeding per se is unimportant in determining an animal's subsequent intake and performance. Rather it is the body composition at a given age, irrespective of the pathway followed to attain that composition, that determines performance thereafter. It is also suggested that the inability of cattle to compensate for a reduction in level of nutrition during the first 3 to 4 months of life is due to the lack of potential for fat deposition, and there is thus limited opportunity for nutritional manipulation of body composition at that age.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , December 1987 , pp. 423 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1987

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

Alexander, R. H. and McGowan, M. 1966. The routine determination of in vitro digestibility of organic matter in forages — an investigation of the problems associated with continuous large-scale operation. Journal of the British Grassland Society 21: 140–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, R. D., Young, N. E. and Laws, J. A. 1985. Changes in the body composition of cattle exhibiting compensatory growth and the modifying effects of grazing management. Animal Production 41: 309–321.Google Scholar
Barthram, G. T. 1986. Experimental techniques: the HFRO sward stick. Biennial Report, The Hill Farming Research Organisation, 1984-85, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar
Drennan, M. J. and Harte, F. J. 1979. Compensatory growth in cattle. 2. Influence of growth rate in the calf stage (birth to 8 months) and during the first winter (8 to 13 months) on subsequent performance and carcass composition. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 18: 145–156.Google Scholar
Ellenberger, H. B., Newlander, J. A. and Jones, C. H. 1950. Composition of the bodies of dairy cattle. Bulletin, Vermont Agricultural Experimental Station, No. 558.Google Scholar
Everitt, G. C. and Jury, K. E. 1977. Growth of cattle in relation to nutrition in early life. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 20: 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, J. M. 1980. Hormones and metabolites in the control of food intake. In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants (ed. Ruckebusch, Y. and Thivend, P.), pp. 145–160. MTP Press, Lancaster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. 1980/1981. Fat partition and distribution in the carcasses of cattle, sheep and pigs: a review. Meat Science 5: 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J.Cuthbertson, A., Jones, D. W. and Owen, M. G. 1981 Prediction of body composition of live cattle using two ultrasonic machines of differing complexity: a report of four separate trials. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96: 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1984. Genstat V, Mark 4.04B. Rothamstead Experimental Station, Harpenden.Google Scholar
Lowman, B. G., Scott, N. A. and Somerville, S. 1976. Condition scoring of cattle. Rev ed. Bulletin, East of Scotland College of Agriculture, No. 6.Google Scholar
Nicoll, G. B. 1982. Effects of double suckling at pasture 1. Cow performance. Animal Production 35: 385–393.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, P. B. 1984. Compensatory gain in cattle and sheep. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews — Series B 54: 389–410.Google Scholar
Russfl, A. J. F., Peart, J. N., Eadie, J., MacDonald, A. J. and White, I. R. 1979. The effect of energy intake during pregnancy on the production from two genotypes of suckler cow. Animal Production 28: 309–327.Google Scholar
Russel, A. J. F., Wright, I. A. and Hunter, E. A. 1985. The performance of single- and twin-reared suckled calves. In Hill and Upland Livestock Production (ed. Maxwell, T. J. and Gunn, R. G.). Occasional Publication, British Society of Animal Production, No. 10, pp. 157–159 (Abstr.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saubidet, C. L. and Verde, L. S. 1976. Relationship between live weight, age and dry-matter intake for beef cattle after different levels of food restriction. Animal Production 22: 61–69.Google Scholar
Southgate, J. R., Cook, G. L. and Kempster, A. J. 1982. A comparison of different breeds and crosses from the suckler herd 1. Live-weight growth and efficiency of food utilization. Animal Production 35: 87–98.Google Scholar
Tayler, J. C. 1959. A relationship between weight of internal fat, ‘fill’, and the herbage intake of grazing cattle. Nature, London 184: 2021–2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. and Terry, R. A. 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18: 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardrop, I. D. 1966. The effects of the plane of nutrition in early post-natal life on the subsequent growth and development of cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 17: 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. H., David, D. J. and Iismaa, O. 1962. The determination of chromic oxide in faeces samples by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 59: 381–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, I. A., Russel, A. J. F. and Hunter, E. A. 1986. The effect of winter food level on compensatory growth of weaned, suckled calves grazed at two sward heights. Animal Production 43: 211–223.Google Scholar
Wyatt, R. D., Gould, M. B. and Totusek, R. 1977. Effects of single vs simulated twin rearing on cow and calf performance. Journal of Animal Science 45: 1409–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar