Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T11:18:31.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The performance of Hereford × Friesian offspring of bulls selected for lean growth rate and lean food conversion efficiency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

S. C. Bishop ,
J. S. Broadbent ,
R. M. Kay ,
I. Rigby  and
A. V. Fisher
S. C. Bishop
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
J. S. Broadbent
Affiliation:
ADAS, MAFF, Windsor House, Cornwall Road, Harrogate HG1 2PW
R. M. Kay
Affiliation:
Drayton EHF, Alcester Road, Stratford on Avon CV37 9RQ
I. Rigby
Affiliation:
High Mowthorpe EHF, Duggleby, Malton, North Yorkshire YO17 8BP
A. V. Fisher
Affiliation:
Department of Meat Animal Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
Get access

Abstract

The performance of Hereford × Friesian calves sired by Hereford bulls selected for either lean growth rate (LGR) or lean food conversion ratio (LFCR), or by unselected Hereford bulls, was evaluated on 327 calves on three farms over 2 years. Animals started test at 130 days of age on average and remained on test for approximately 300 days, whereupon all animals were slaughtered and carcass dissections were undertaken. Individual food intake was measured on tioo of the farms (189 animals), but only intake per pen of animals was measured on the third farm and individual food intake had to be estimated. LGR, LFCR and other traits describing performance were calculated from the growth, food intake and carcass composition data.

If no breed or environment interactions exist it is expected that proportionately 0-5 of the genetic differences between selected and control line bulls would be transmitted to their offspring. For the LGR and LFCR line bulls these values were 0·38 and 0·44, respectively, however the LGR value had a much smaller confidence interval. Genetic correlations derived from regressing breeding values predicted from offspring performance on breeding values predicted from the bulk's own performance in the selection experiment were 0·62 (s.e. 0·28) and 0·96 (s.e. 0·28) for LGR and LFCR, respectively. Heritabilities were: live-weight gain on test, 0·27; daily gain, 0·48; food intake, 0·06; food conversion ratio, 0·46; predicted carcass lean content, 0·10; killing-out proportion, 0·10; LGR, 0·36 and LFCR, 0·48.

Keywords

beef cattlebody lean masscrossbreedingfood conversionselection
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , February 1992 , pp. 23 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1992

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

Averdunk, G., Alps, H., Gottschalk, A. and Fusseder, J. 1980. Relationship between performance test traits of the sire and fattening and carcass traits of his progeny. Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Munich, paper C3.6.Google Scholar
Baker, R. L., Wickham, B. W. and Morris, C. A. 1984. Relationship between central performance test for growth in Hereford bulls and growth and carcass traits of progeny. Animal Production 39:371–382.Google Scholar
Davies, O. L. and Goldsmith, P. L. 1976. Statistical methods in research and production. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
De Roo, G. and Fimland, E. A. 1983. A genetic analysis of performance and progeny test data for young bulls of Norwegian Red cattle and various Friesian crosses. Livestock Production Science 10:123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, A. V. and Bayntun, J. A. 1988. ABRO/ADAS Hereford crossbreeding trial, 1986-97. Interim report of evaluations carried out at the Institute of Food Research, Bristol Laboratory.Google Scholar
Koger, M., Jilek, A. F., Burns, W. C. and Crockett, J. R. 1975. Sire effects for specific combining ability in purebred and crossbred cattle. Journal of Animal Science 40:230–234.Google Scholar
Lessells, W. J. and Francis, A. L. 1968. The crossbred progeny test of beef bulls. Experimental Husbandry 16: 1–12.Google Scholar
Mrode, R. A., Smith, C. and Thompson, R. 1990. Selection for rate and efficiency of lean gain in Hereford cattle. 1. Selection pressure applied and direct responses. Animal Production 51: 23–34.Google Scholar
Smith, C., Steane, D. E. and Jordan, C. 1979. Progeny test results on Hereford bulls weight-recorded on the farm. Animal Production 28:49–53.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
Tilsch, K., Wollert, J. and Baumung, A. 1989. Relationships between breeding values for growth of beef sires in purebreeding and crossbreeding. Livestock Production Science 21: 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar