Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T03:01:54.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison for live weight and carcass production of Charolais, Hereford and Friesian steer progeny from Friesian cows finished on two energy levels and serially slaughtered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. J. More O'Ferrall  and
M. G. Keane
G. J. More O'Ferrall
Affiliation:
Grange Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
M. G. Keane
Affiliation:
Grange Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
Get access

Abstract

One hundred and sixty-two spring born steers comprising 54 Charolais × Friesian (CH), 54 Hereford × Friesian (HE) and 54 Friesians (FR) were reared together from shortly after birth until the end of their second grazing season at a mean age of 573 days. The animals were then blocked on weight within genotype, housed in a slatted shed and allocated to either a high (12·6 MJ metabolizable energy (ME) per kg) or a medium (10·4 MJ ME per kg) energy diet offered ad libitum until slaughter at one of three target carcass weights · light (260 kg (HE, FR and CH)), normal (300 kg (HE and FR) and 320 kg (CH)) or heavy (340 kg (HE and FR) and 380 kg (CH)) to give a 3 (breed type) · 2 (energy level) · 3 (slaughter weight) factorial arrangement during the finishing winter. The trial was repeated in 3 years consecutively.

CH were significantly heavier than HE at all times up to 18 months of age when they were 43 kg heavier, at which stage they were also 24 kg heavier than FR. CH grew significantly faster at pasture than HE in both seasons and faster than FR in the second season. HE had the best daily gain in the finishing period.

Overall slaughter weights per day of age, carcass weights per day of age and carcass weights of CH, HE and FR were 812, 771 and 761 (s.e. 9·2) g, 448, 418 and 405 (s.e. 4·8) g and 318. 299 and 298 (s.e. 2·2) kg, respectively. CH had significantly better killing-out proportions (lOg/kg) than HE which in turn were 10 g/kg better than FR. CH and FR had similar carcass length, carcass depth, leg length and leg widths and both were significantly larger than HE. CH had significantly larger longissimus dorsi areas than either HE or FR (80·9 v. 67·0 and 66·4 cm-); they also had significantly better conformation scores than HE which in turn were significantly better than FR.

Increasing the energy level during the finishing period increased daily gain by proportionately 0·52 (1089 v. 684 g/day), reduced slaughter age by 51 days (711 v. 762 days) and significantly increased killing-out proportion (551 v. 534 g/kg) and conformation score (4·86 v. 4·64). Offal as a proportion of empty live weight tended to be higher for FR than for HE or CH, the exception being the hide, which was significantly lower for FR.

Keywords

carcasscattle breedsenergylive weightsteers
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , February 1990 , pp. 19 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1990

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, London.Google Scholar
Andersen, B. B., Liboriussen, T., Kousgaard, K. and Buchter, I. 1977. Crossbreeding experiments with beef and dual-purpose sire breeds on Danish dairy cows. Daily gain, feed conversion and carcass quality of intensively fed young bulls. Livestock Production Science 4: 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, K. A., Wilson, L. L., Ziegler, J. H., Levan, P. J. and Watkins, J. L. 1981. Charolais and Angus steers slaughtered at equal percentages of mature cow weight. 1. Effects of slaughter weight and diet density on carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 52: 218–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callow, E. H. 1961. Comparative studies in meat. VII. A comparison between Hereford, Dairy Shorthorn and Friesian steers on four levels of nutrition. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 56: 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De boer, H., Dumont, B. L., Pomeroy, R. W. and Weniger, J. H. 1974. Manual on E.A.A.P. reference methods for the assessment of carcass characteristics in cattle. Livestock Production Science 1: 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, G. C, Jury, K. E., Dalton, D. C. and Langridge, M. 1980. Beef production of straight-bred and beef-cross Friesian steers in several environments. New Zealand Journal of Animal Science. 46: 255–270.Google Scholar
Ferrell, C. L., Kohlmeier, R. H., Crouse, J. D. and Glimp, H. 1978. Influence of dietary energy, protein and biological type of steer upon rate of gain and carcass characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 23: 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, A. V. 1981. Systems of beef production from dairy herd calves. In Calf To Beef, Handbook Series No. 17, pp. 1–3. An Foras Talúntaius, Dublin.Google Scholar
Geay, Y. and Robelin, J. 1979. Variation of meat production capacity in cattle due to genotype and level of feeding: genotype × nutrition interactions. Livestock Production Science 6: 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harte, F. J. and Connife, D. 1967. Studies on cattle of varying growth potential for beef production. 1. Growth rate, feed conversion and efficiency, carcass and offals. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 6: 137–152.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1985. Users' Guide for LSMLMW. (Mixed Model least squares and maximum likelihood computer program 10//85). Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G., More o'ferrall, G. J. and Connolly, J. 1989. Growth and carcass composition of Friesian, Limousin × Friesian and Blonde D'Aquitaine × Friesian steers. Animal Production 48: 353–365.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G., More O'Ferrall, G. J., Connolly, J. and Allen, P. 1990. Carcass composition of serially slaughtered Friesian, Hereford × Friesian and Charolais × Friesian steers finished on two dietary energy levels. Animal Production. In press.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. and Southgate, J. R. 1982. A comparison of the progeny of British Friesian dams and different sire breeds in 16- and 24-month beef production systems. 2. Carcass characteristics, and rate and efficiency of meat gain. Animal Production 34: 167–178.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. and Southgate, J. R. 1988. Evaluation of British Friesian, Canadian Holstein and beef breed × British Friesian steers slaughtered over a commercial range of fatness from 16- and 24-month beef production systems. 2. Carcass characteristics, and rate and efficiency of lean gain. Animal Production 46: 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liboriussen, T. 1982. Sire breed influence of various beef breeds on calving performance, growth rate, feed efficiency, carcass and meat quality. Proceedings of the European Community Seminar on Beef Production from Dairy Herds, Dublin (ed. O'Ferrall, G. J. More), pp. 82–91. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
More o'ferrall, G. J. and Keane, M. G. 1987. Beef production from the dairy herd. In Breeding Dairy Cattle under Quota Restrictions, pp. 66–75. An Foras Talúntais, Dublin.Google Scholar
Ryan, P. O. 1977. Beef carcass classification. Proceedings of Cattle Production Seminar, An Foras Taluntais, Grange, paper 21.Google Scholar
Smith, G. M., Laster, D. B., Cundiff, L. V. and Gregory, K. E. 1976. Characterization of biological types of cattle. II. Postwcaning growth and feed efficiency of steers. Journal of Animal Science 43: 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southgate, J. R., Cook, G. L. and Kempster, A. I. 1982. 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. Animal Production 34: 155–166.Google Scholar
Southgate, J. R., Cook, G. L. and Kempster, A. J. 1988. Evaluation of British Friesian, Canadian Holstein and beef breed × British Friesian steers slaughtered over a commercial range of fatness from 16-month and 24-month beef production systems. 1. Live-weight gain and efficiency of food utilization. Animal Production 46: 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teehan, T. J. 1982. Relative performance of beef breeds and their dairy crosses in Ireland. Proceedings of the European Community Seminar on Beef Production from Dairy Herds, Dublin (ed. O'Ferrall, G. J. More), pp. 69–80. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar