Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:08:49.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Canadian Holstein × British Friesian and British Friesian steers for beef production. 1. On-farm performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P. Rowlinson ,
P. L. Baber ,
M. B. Willis  and
A. J. Chalmers
P. Rowlinson
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
P. L. Baber
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
M. B. Willis
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
A. J. Chalmers
Affiliation:
Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, Government Buildings, Kenton Bar, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 2YA
Get access

Abstract

A comparison was undertaken of 92 Canadian Holstein × British Friesian (HF) and 93 British Friesian (F), autumn born, male calves on three typical United Kingdom production systems. These were: intensive barley beef system (BB); a grass/cereal 18-month system (18m); and 24-month forage system (24m). Calves were brought in from a variety of farms. HF calves were heavier on arrival (43·1 v. 40.7 kg ***). The calves were the progeny of 27 Canadian Holstein and 43 British Friesian sires, and all out of British Friesian dams. They were castrated and reared conventionally to 100 kg before being allocated to treatment. Slaughter was undertaken when subjective handling suggested that the carcass would classify as fat-class 2 on the Meat and Livestock Commission classification scheme (equivalent to European Economic Community fat-class 3), provided that a minimum live weight (BB, 380 kg; 18m/24m, 420 kg) was achieved. There were no differences between breeds in daily live-weight gain on any system. Other results, HF first, follow. At slaughter, HF were both older (BB, 362 v. 342 days **; 18m, 591 v. 558 days ***; 24m, 716 v. 673 days ***) and heavier (BB, 413 v. 395 kg ***; 18m, 486 v. 469 kg NS; 24m, 531 v. 496 kg ***). Efficiency of food conversion, measured on the BB system only, was not significantly different (5·83 v. 5·84).

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , June 1984 , pp. 399 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1984

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. 1981. Breeds for dairy beef production. Camb. Cattle Breed. Club Winter Conf., pp. 47–52.Google Scholar
Allen, D. and Kilkenny, B. 1980. Planned Beef Production. Granada Publishing, London.Google Scholar
Baber, P. L. 1982. The effects of the Canadian Holstein on beef production from the Friesian dairy herd. M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Baber, P. L., Rowlinson, P., Willis, M. B. and Chalmers, A. J. 1984. A comparison of Canadian Holstein × British Friesian and British Friesian steers for beef production. 2. Carcass characteristics. Anim. Prod. 38: 407–415.Google Scholar
Boothroyd, D. 1979. Holsteins for beef. A. Rev. High Mowthorpe Exp. Husb. Fm, pp. 47–49.Google Scholar
Bowman, J. C., Butler, E. A. and Tuncel, E. 1978. Coefficients of inbreeding and degree of relationship for the British Friesian herd. Anim. Prod. 27: 269–276.Google Scholar
Cook, K. N. and M., Newton Jennifer 1979. A comparison of Canadian Holstein and British Friesian steers for the production of beef from an 18-month grass/cereal system. Anim. Prod. 28: 41–47.Google Scholar
Ellwood, S. J. 1978. A genetic history of the Friesian breed of cattle and the effects on breed structure of recent importations from Holland and Canada. B.Sc. Thesis, Univ. Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Federation of United Kingdom Milk Marketing Boards. 1979. United Kingdom Dairy Facts & Figures. Federation of United Kingdom Milk Marketing Boards, Thames Ditton, Surrey.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G. 1982. Carcase Evaluation in Livestock Breeding, Production and Marketing. Granada Publishing, London.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1975. Guidelines of beef carcass improvements. Tech. Bull. Mktg Meat Trade, No. 18. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1970. Canadian Holstein × British Friesian Beef Comparison. Rep. Breed. Prod. Org. Milk Mktg Bd, No. 20, pp. 96–97.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1981. Relationship between the U.K. base for sire evaluation and the base in Canada. Rep. Breed. Prod. Org. Milk Mktg Bd, No.31, pp. 74–76.Google Scholar
O'connor, L. K. and Willis, M. B. 1967. The effect of artificial insemination on the breed structure of British Friesian cattle. Anim. Prod. 9: 287–293.Google Scholar
Oldenbroek, J. K. 1977. [A comparison of North American Holstein-Friesians with Dutch Black and Red Pieds.] Tierzüchter 29: 374–378.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. and Asker, A. A. 1951. The genetic history and breed-structure of British Friesian cattle. Emp. J. exp. Agric. 19: 113–130.Google Scholar
Rooy, j., De, Vos. H. and Oldenbroek, J. K. 1980. [Crossbreeding trials using semen of Holstein-Friesian bulls in the Netherlands. 9. Milk production results in the second generation.] Bedrijfsontwikkeling 10: 1141–1145.Google Scholar
Tas, M. V. and Scott, B. M. 1982. Evaluation of Holstein steers for beef production. Expl Husb., No.38, pp. 184–196.Google Scholar