Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T14:29:35.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in beef production I. The effects of level of feeding and of breed on the growth and fattening of spring born cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. J. Brookes  and
John Hodges
A. J. Brookes
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
John Hodges
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The sources of calves for rearing for beef are discussed and the dependence of the beef industry upon the dairy industry demonstrated.

2. An experiment designed to compare the effects of four levels of feeding on the growth rate, conformation, economy of food conversion and type of carcase produced, of three breeds of spring-born steers, Hereford, Dairy Shorthorn and Friesian, is described. The levels of feeding are high or moderate in the calf stage, each followed by high or moderate feeding in subsequent winters.

3. The results on growth and time of fattening are given and discussed.

4. The calves fed on a high level were almost twice the weight of those fed on a moderate level at 8 months old.

5. The well-reared calf had an advantage over the moderately reared calf for the rest of its life.

6. Although calves which had been reared moderately showed a marked improvement in growth rate when subsequently fed on a higher level they did not reach the weight of calves fed well throughout at 2 years old.

7. The level of feeding in the calf stage had little effect upon the time of fattening provided that the level of feeding in the winter periods of subsequent life was on a high level.

8. When subsequent feeding was on a moderate level in the winter months, the calf reared well initially fattened on grass a year earlier than the moderately reared animal.

9. The high-moderate treatment is shown to be the most satisfactory from many points of view. On this treatment a minimum of concentrates is used in the production of beef.

10. The moderate-moderate cattle may be too heavy for present-day requirements when finished off grass at 3½ years old.

11. Cattle which were fed on a high level in winter from 8 to 14 months put on less live weight in the following summer than those fed moderately. A live-weight gain of about 1 lb. a day in winter would appear to be satisfactory if the cattle are to make good use of grass in the following summer.

12. These main feeding treatment effects applied to the three breeds used.

13. The Friesians were heavier than Dairy Shorthorns or Herefords as calves, and the live weight at most ages was in descending order Friesians, Dairy Shorthorns, Herefords.

14. The growth rate of Friesian steers was higher than that of the other two breeds at most stages of life, but the difference between Dairy Shorthorns and Herefords was negligible.

15. The Herefords finished earlier than the Dairy Shorthorns and Friesians when fattened in yards or on grass.

16. There was some indication (Brookes, 1954) that husk and ringworm caused less trouble with cattle which had been well reared than with those moderately reared.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , August 1959 , pp. 78 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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, F. E. & Wishart, J. (1930). J. Agric. Sci. 20, 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annual Abstract of Statistics (1954), 91, 170.Google Scholar
Brookes, A. J. (1948). Golden Sheaf C.U.A.S. 7, (1), p. 22.Google Scholar
Brookes, A. J. (1951). J. Fmrs' Cl., Lond., 5, 64.Google Scholar
Brookes, A. J. (1954). Publ. Brit. Vet. Ass. no. 24, p. 80.Google Scholar
Brookes, A. J. & Latham, J. O. (1957). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 25, 339.Google Scholar
Brookes, A. J. & Vincett, L. S. (1950). J. Roy. Agric. Soc. 3, 99.Google Scholar
Commonwealth Economic Committee (1957). Meat, pp. 12–25.Google Scholar
Cooper, M. M. (1953). Beef Production, pp. 156–74. London: Nelson.Google Scholar
Everall, J. H. (1945). J. Fmrs' Cl, Lond., 1, 1.Google Scholar
Fraser, A. (1953). Beef Cattle Husbandry, pp. 160–72. London: Crosby Lockwood.Google Scholar
Hoddell, G. P. J. (1947). Agriculture, 54, 402.Google Scholar
Joubert, D. M. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. W. B. (1953). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 76.Google Scholar
Mansfield, W. S. (1949). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 21.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board (1955–1956). Rep. Prod. Div. 6, 60.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board (1957–1958). Rep. Prod. Div. 8, 86.Google Scholar
Morrison, F. B. (1936). Feeds and Feeding, 20th ed. p. 1006. New York: Morrison Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Nelms, G. & Bogart, B. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tayler, J. C. (1954). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 3.Google Scholar
Watson, W. P. (1956). Scot. Agric. 35, 195.Google Scholar
Wood, T. B. & Woodman, H. E. (1939). Rations for livestock. Bull. Minist. Agric. no. 48. (10th ed.).Google Scholar