Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:48:21.404Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the Charolais, British Friesian and Hereford breeds as sires of crossbred singlesuckled calves for beef production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. E. Haycock  and
D. A. Stewart
R. E. Haycock
Affiliation:
Grassland Experimental Centre, Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Castle Archdale, Lisnarick, Co. Fermanagh
D. A. Stewart
Affiliation:
Biometrics Division, Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Dundonald House, Upper Newtownards Road, Belfast 4
Get access

Summary

In three successive years cows from an Aberdeen Angus cross Shorthorn herd were mated to pedigree Charolais, British Friesian and Hereford bulls. A comparison of the progeny of the three breeds of sire under controlled conditions was therefore possible using a random selection of dams for mating, and identical rearing of the calves. Results for live-weight gain of the suckled progeny were analysed and showed superiority of the Charolais breed over the other two when used in this form of beef cattle production.

For birth weights and daily live-weight gains, particularly during the grazing period, the Charolais cross progeny showed superiority over the other two. There was a consistent although not always statistically significant tendency for these differences between the breed crosses to occur in the male calves only, the females showing little difference between breeds. The data also showed highly significant relationships between gestation period and birth weight, both within and between breed crosses.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , December 1973 , pp. 267 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1973

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

Andersen, H. 1962. Relationship between length of gestation and birth weight of the calf. Aarsberetn. Inst. Sterilitetsforskn. K. Vet.-og Landbohojsk 115–165.Google Scholar
Andersen, H. and Plum, M. 1965. Gestation length and birth weight in cattle and buffaloes: a review. J. Dairy Sci. 48: 1224–1235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beef Recording Association. 1968. Suckler Beef Production, 1966–1968. Technical Report No. 10. Beef Recording Association, ReadingGoogle Scholar
Brown, C. J. 1960. Influence of year and season of birth, sex, sire, and age of dam on weights of beef calves at 60,120,180, and 240 days of age. J. Anim. Sci. 19: 1062–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franke, D. E., England, N. C. and Hendry, J. E. 1965. Effect of breed of dam and breed of sire on birth weight of beef calves. J. Anim. Sci. 24: 281 (Abstr.)Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1960. Least squares analysis of data with unequal subclass numbers. United States Dept of Agriculture, ARS-20–8.Google Scholar
Koonce, K. L. and Dillard, E. U. 1967. Some environmental effects on birth weight and gestation length in Hereford cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 26: 205. (Abstr.)Google Scholar
Lampo, P. and Willems, A. 1965. [Causes of variation in birth weight of calves.] Vlaams diergeneesk, Tijdschr. 34: 79–84.Google Scholar
McNally, D. H. 1970. A note on the weights and weight gains of some Charolais and contemporary calves of other breeds in Northern Ireland. Anim. Prod. 12: 539–542.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1966. The Charolais Report. Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton, Surrey.Google Scholar
Nelms, G. E. and Bogart, R. 1956. The effect of birth weight, age of dam and time of birth on suckling gains of beef calves. J. Anim. Sci. 15: 662–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, L. K., Wood, P. D. P. and Smith, G. F. 1968. A note on the differences between geographical areas in the gestation length and birth weight of British Friesian calves. Anim. Prod. 10: 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, T. R. and Willis, M. B. 1970. Intensive Beef Production. Pergamon Press, London.Google Scholar
Reynolds, W. L., Derouen, T. M., Meyerhoeffer, D. C., Wiltbank, J. N. and Temple, R. S. 1965. Birth weight and gestation length of beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 24: 851. (Abstr.)Google Scholar
Skinner, J. D. and Joubert, D. M. 1963. A further note on the duration of pregnancy and birth weight in beef cattle in the subtropics. Proc. S.Afr. Soc. Anim. Prod. 2: 104–106.Google Scholar