CROSSING BEEF CATTLE WITH CHIHUAHUAN CRIOLLOO CATTLE IS AN EFFICIENT ALTERNATIVE FOR BEEF PRODUCTION ON ARID ENVIRONMENTS OF NORTHERN MEXICO rnational Conference on Livestock Nutrition. Frankfurt, Germany. August 11/12, 2015
WHERE IS CHIHUAHUA? Annual precipitation
In dry environments, climate change aggravate conditions Grasslands capacity is reduced Higher costs of supplementation Inadequate or absent grazing cattle methods Deteriorated Chihuahuan grasslands with proliferation of invasive species THE PROBLEM
Finding ecological and economical alternatives of production is compulsory for local producers Reducing overgrazing Low cost beef production Acceptable for consumerss THE CHALLENGE
Adaptation to local conditions, tolerance to low nutrient contents, diversified use of pasture (Isselstein et al., 2007) Comparable meat quality (Vatansever Vatansever et al., 2000; Liotta et al., 2011) Healthy fatty acids profile and antioxidants (Vatansever et al., 2000; Orellana et al. 2009) INTRODUCTION Rustic breeds advantages
Grazing Criollo cattle takes advantages of grasslands on an ecological way and produces healthy beef (Frederickson, 2005; Roacho et al., 2007; Anderson et al., 2015) BACKGROUND So, why not to use it pure? Prejudges Market (rodeo)
Angus and Criollo crosses Phenotypic characteristics similar to Angus Rusticity and adaptability characteristics (anecdotal)? BACKGROUND
To validate Criollo cattle on strategic crosses with Angus as an alternative for sustainable beef production. To evaluate the use of grasslands and the grazing behaviour of Criollo, Angus and their crosses (females) To evaluate productive parameters and feed efficiency of steers under extensive conditions and short indoors fattening (males) To evaluate quality of meat, fatty acid and antioxidant profile of steers under extensive conditions and short indoors fattening OBJECTIVES
Animals 18 heifers (Six Criollo, six Angus x Criolloand six Angus) born and grown at the experimental site (adapted). Experimental farmarm from the University Twelve months old Grazing site Highly diversified plant population Grassland dominated by Boutelouvahirsuta, B. radicosaand B. gracilis Ad libitum water availability (GRAZING BEHAVI IOUR)
Monitoring of animals Six days of constant monitoring in summer fall and winter Every day two different heifers/breed were monitored Students with GPS (Garmin) Localization Activity (Standing(no activity), Laying (resting rumia), Walking exclusively o Grazing) (GRAZING BEHAVI IOUR)
Criolloand A x C graze > 1 hour more A x C and Criollorest less than Angus on winter Walking Laying Grazing Standing Standing Grazing Laying Walking % 100% 8.92% 9.70% 8.54% % 22.3 21.2 20.4 90% % 80% % % * 34.7 39.2 40.4 70% 60% 49.13% * 54.59% 57.15% % 50% % 40% % % * 35.5 29.3 32.6 30% 20% 35.75% * 29.04% 26.51% % % 7.6 10.3 6.5 ANGUS CRIOLLO AxC Summer -Autumm 10% 0% 6.20% 6.66% 7.80% ANGUS CRIOLLO AxC Winter
GRAZING AREA
Twenty four steers (8 Criollo, 8 Angus x Criolloand 8 Hereford x Angus) Performance monitored for one year after weaning. Weighting animals every 2 weeks. Under regular management at the farm After one year on grazing system, Productive performance and feed months after one of adaptation Slaughter for evaluating; shelf life meat quality and tenderness animals went indoors efficiency measured for three (colour), carcass characteristics, QUALITY
PRODUCTIVE PERFO FORMANCE
Weights on grazing system 340 320 300 RESULTS Kg BW 280 260 240 Grazingon irrigated cultivation. Grain suppleme ntation. Pen with corn stubble. 220 200 180 Rain season.grazing on natural lands. Dry season. Lowgrass availability. 160 140 120 Angus x Criollo Hereford x Angus Criollo 100
Indoors finishing 21 steers remaining(7 Hereford x Angus, 7 A x C y 7 Criollos) Why indoors? 430 410 LIVE WEIGHT 390 370 Conditioning Trial Kg Body Weight 350 330 310 ConC * * 290 270 250 Entry Dec Jan Jan Feb Feb Mar Hereford x Angus Criollo Angus x Criollo
RFI Average: 0.036 in AxC 0.132 in Criollo 0.094 in HxA Residual Food Intake Angus x Criollo -0.389 0.744 Criollo had a trend to e more efficient -0.632 Criollo 0.252 AxC seems to have lightly better trend han HxA -0.746 Hereford x Angus 1.075-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Grs Dry Matter
Carcass weights and yields Final weight: *Criollo=355kg, AxC= 392kg and HxA=412kg % 62,0 Criollo Angus x Criollo Hereford x Angus 280,0 60,0 260,0 240,0 58,0 220,0 56,0 200,0 180,0 54,0 160,0 140,0 52,0 120,0 CARCASS EVALU UATION 50,0 Hot carcass yield 100,0 Carcass weight (kg)
12,0 10,0 8,0 Criollo Carcass characteristics Angus x Criolloo Hereford x Angus CARCASS TRAITS 6,0 4,0 2,0 * * 0,0 DF mm % KF Rib eye area (in2) Marbling
Kg f 25 20 15 10 Thoughness on rib eye steaks Angus x Criollo Hereford x Angus Criollo * 13.68 * 17.95 * 23.88 TENDERNESS 5 0 Genetic group
Ch hroma (C*) 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 Angus x Criollo Criollo Hereford x Angus COLOUR LOST 17 16 15 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Days on retail display within modified atmosphere
Criollo had some carcass traits comparable to European cattle and seemed to be more efficient ondailygain Angus x Criollo cattle showed remarkable good meat quality such as marbling, and better tenderness and colour conservationthanhxa Remarkably, Angus x Criollo cattle kept beneficial characteristics from both Criollo and Angus, and seems a good alternative for beef production on deserted areas Is adaptation the key? CONCLUSIONS AND I IMPLICATIONS
Thank you UESTIONS OR COMMENTS?