Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:41:32.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intake, growth and carcass traits in male progeny of sires differing in genetic merit for beef production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

A. M. Clarke ,
M. J. Drennan ,
M. McGee ,
D. A. Kenny ,
R. D. Evans  and
D. P. Berry
A. M. Clarke
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Beef Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
M. J. Drennan
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Beef Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
M. McGee*
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Beef Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
D. A. Kenny
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
R. D. Evans
Affiliation:
Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, Highfield House, Bandon, Co. Cork, Ireland
D. P. Berry
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Validation of economic indexes under a controlled experimental environment, can aid in their acceptance and use as breeding tools to increase herd profitability. The objective of this study was to compare intake, growth and carcass traits in bull and steer progeny of high and low ranking sires, for genetic merit in an economic index. The Beef Carcass Index (BCI; expressed in euro (€) and based on weaning weight, feed intake, carcass weight, carcass conformation and fat scores) was generated by the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation as a tool to compare animals on genetic merit for the expected profitability of their progeny at slaughter. A total of 107 male suckler herd progeny, from 22 late-maturing ‘continental’ beef sires of high (n = 11) or low (n = 11) BCI were compared under either a bull or steer production system, and slaughtered at approximately 16 and 24 months of age, respectively. All progeny were purchased after weaning at approximately 6 to 8 months of age. Dry matter (DM) intake and live-weight gain in steer progeny offered grazed grass or grass silage alone, did not differ between the two genetic groups. Similarly, DM intake and feed efficiency did not differ between genetic groups during an ad libitum concentrate-finishing period on either production system. Carcasses of progeny of high BCI sires were 14 kg heavier (P < 0.05) than those of low BCI sires. In a series of regression analyses, increasing sire BCI resulted in increases in carcass weight (P < 0.01) and carcass conformation (P = 0.051) scores, and decreases in carcass fat (P < 0.001) scores, but had no effect on weaning weight or DM intake of the progeny. Each unit increase in sire expected progeny difference led to an increase in progeny weaning weight, DM intake, carcass weight, carcass conformation score and carcass fat score of 1.0 (s.e. = 0.53) kg, 1.1 (s.e. = 0.32) kg, 1.3 (s.e. = 0.31) kg, 0.9 (s.e. = 0.32; scale 1 to 15) and 1.0 (s.e. = 0.25; scale 1 to 15), respectively, none of which differed from the theoretical expectation of unity. The expected difference in profitability at slaughter between progeny of the high and low BCI sires was €42, whereas the observed phenotypic profit differential of the progeny was €53 in favour of the high BCI sires. Results from this study indicate that the BCI is a useful tool in the selection of genetically superior sires, and that actual progeny performance under the conditions of this study is within expectations for both bull and steer beef production systems.

Keywords

beef cattlecarcass traitsfeed efficiencygenetic meriteconomic index
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 6 , June 2009 , pp. 791 - 801
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

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

Allen, P, Finnerty, N 2000. Objective beef carcass classification. A report of a trial of three VIA classification systems. National Food Centre, Teagasc and Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Barkhouse, KL, Van Vleck, LD, Cundiff, LV, Buchanan, DS, Marshall, DM 1998. Comparison of sire breed solutions for growth traits adjusted by mean expected progeny difference to a 1993 base. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2287–2293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bath, DL, Ronning, M, Lofgreen, GP, Meyer, JH 1966. Influence of variations in ruminal contents upon estimates of body weight change of dairy cattle during restricted feeding. Journal of Dairy Science 49, 830–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, DP, Shalloo, L, Cromie, AR, Veerkamp, RF, Dillon, P, Amer, PR, Kearney, JF, Evans, RD, Wickham, B 2007. The economic breeding index: a generation on. Technical report to the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, Co. Cork, Ireland.Google Scholar
Bord Bia 2008. Meat and Livestock. Review & Outlook 2007–08. Bord Bia – Irish Food Board, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Butler, ST, Stakelum, GK, Murphy, JJ, Delaby, L, Rath, M, O’Mara, FP 2003. The relationship between milk production potential and herbage intake of grazing dairy cows. Animal Science 77, 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, AM, Drennan, MJ, McGee, M, Kenny, DA, Evans, RD, Berry, DP 2009. Live animal measurements, carcass composition and plasma hormone and metabolite concentrations in male progeny of sires differing in genetic merit for beef production. Animal (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission of the European Communities 1982. Commission of the European Communities (Beef Carcass Classification) Regulations. Council Regulations 1358/80, 1208/82. Commission Regulations 2930/81, 563/82, 1557/82. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Crews, DH Jr 2002. The relationship between beef sire carcass EPD and progeny phenotype. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82, 503–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crews, DH Jr 2005. Genetics of efficient feed utilization and national cattle evaluation: a review. Genetics and Molecular Research 4, 152–165.Google ScholarPubMed
Crews, DH Jr, Pollak, EJ, Quaas, RL 2004. Evaluation of Simmental carcass EPD estimated using live and carcass data. Journal of Animal Science 82, 661–667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drennan, MJ, Bath, IH 1976. Single-suckled beef production. 4. Effect of plane of nutrition during late pregnancy on subsequent calf performance. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 15, 169–176.Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ, McGee, M 2004. Effect of suckler cow genotype and nutrition level during the winter on voluntary intake and performance and on the growth and slaughter characteristics of their progeny. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 43, 185–199.Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ, McGee, M 2009. Effect of beef sire expected progeny difference for carcass conformation on live animal muscular scores and ultrasonically scanned measurements and carcass classification and composition of their progeny. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research (in press).Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ, Moloney, AP, Keane, MG 1994. Effects of protein and energy supplements on performance of young bulls offered grass silage. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 33, 1–10.Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ, Carson, AF, Crosse, S 2005a. Overview of animal production from pastures in Ireland. In Utilisation of grazed grass in temperate animal systems (ed. JJ Murphy), pp. 19–35. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ, McGee, M, Keane, MG 2005b. Post-weaning performance and carcass characteristics of steer progeny from different suckler cow breed types. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44, 195–204.Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ, McGee, M, Keane, MG 2008. The value of muscular and skeletal scores in the live animal and carcass classification scores as indicators of carcass composition in cattle. Animal 2, 752–760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, RD, Pabiou, T, Cromie, A, Kearney, F, Wickham, B 2007. Genetic improvement in the Irish suckler beef herd: Industry expectation and experience so far. Proceedings of the Interbull Technical Workshop, Paris, France, March 9–10 2007, Bulletin no. 36. Retrieved May 14, 2008, from http://www-interbull.slu.se/bulletins/framesida-pub.htmGoogle Scholar
Gregory, KE, Cundiff, LV, Koch, RM 1992. Effects of breed and retained heterosis on milk yield and 200-day weight in advanced generations of composite populations of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 70, 2366–2372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickey, JM, Keane, MG, Kenny, DA, Cromie, AR, Veerkamp, RF 2007. Genetic parameters for EUROP carcass traits within different groups of cattle in Ireland. Journal of Animal Science 85, 314–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Society of Animal Genetics 2008. Recommended ISAG panels of markers for parentage verification. Retrieved May 21, 2008, from http://www.isag.org.uk/ISAG/all/02_PVpanels_LPCGH.docGoogle Scholar
Juniper, DT, Bryant, MJ, Beever, DE, Fisher, AV 2007. Effect of breed, system, housing system and dietary crude protein content on performance of finishing beef cattle fed maize-silage-based diets. Animal 1, 771–779.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keane, MG 1987. Short term weight changes in beef cattle. An Foras Taluntais Research Report – Animal Production, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar
Keane, MG 2003. Evaluation of Cattle of varying dairy genetic merit for beef. Beef Production Series no. 60, Project no. 4686. Teagasc, Co. Meath, Ireland. ISBN 1 84170 322 X.Google Scholar
Keane, MG, Diskin, MG 2007. Performance and carcass traits of progeny of Limousin sires differing in genetic merit. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 46, 63–76.Google Scholar
Mayes, RW, Lamb, CS, Colgrove, PM 1986. The use of dosed and herbage n-alkanes as markers for the determination of herbage intake. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 107, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGee, M, Drennan, MJ, Caffrey, PJ 2005a. Effect of suckler cow genotype on milk yield and pre-weaning calf performance. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44, 185–194.Google Scholar
McGee, M, Keane, MG, Neilan, R, Moloney, AP, Caffrey, PJ 2005b. Production and carcass traits of high dairy genetic merit Holstein, standard daily genetic merit Friesian and Charolais × Holstein-Friesian male cattle. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44, 215–231.Google Scholar
Núñez-Dominguez, R, Van Vleck, LD, Cundiff, LV 1993. Breed comparisons for growth traits adjusted for within-breed genetic trend using expected progeny differences. Journal of Animal Science 71, 1419–1428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Mara, F 1996. A net energy system for cattle and sheep. Department of Animal Science and Production, Faculty of Agriculture, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Owens, D, McGee, M, Boland, T, O’Kiely, P 2008. Intake, rumen fermentation and nutrient flow to the omasum in beef cattle fed grass silage fortified with sucrose and/or supplemented with concentrate. Animal Feed Science and Technology 144, 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purchas, RW, Burnham, DL, Morris, ST 2002. Effects of growth potential and growth path on tenderness of beef longissimus muscle from bulls and steers. Journal of Animal Science 80, 3211–3221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romanczak, T 2005. Prediction of forage intake and production of steers in a winter forage system. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://kitkat.wvu.edu:8080/files/4214/Romanczak_Taryn_thesis.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, Y 1992. The effectiveness of the best linear unbiased prediction of beef sires using field data collected from small farms. Journal of Animal Science 70, 3317–3321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 2008. User’s Guide, version 9.1: Statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ 1995. The effect of plane of nutrition and slaughter weight on growth and food efficiency in bulls, steers and heifers of three breed crosses. Livestock Production Science 42, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderwert, W, Berger, LL, McKeith, FK, Baker, AM, Gonyou, HW, Bechtel, PJ 1985. Influence of zeranol implants on growth, behaviour and carcass traits in Angus and Limousin bulls and steers. Journal of Animal Science 61, 310–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, RE, Moser, D, Clark, SC 2004. Relationship between Charolais sire expected progeny difference and progeny performance in commercial beef herds. The Professional Animal Scientist 20, 503–505.Google Scholar