Comparison of Feedlot Performance and Carcass Traits Among Various Three-Breed Cross Calves

Similar documents
Making Beef Out of Dairy

Goal Oriented Use of Genetic Prediction

PERFORMANCE OF NURSING CALVES FED SUPPLEMENT WITH VARYING PROTEIN LEVELS. D. B. Faulkner and F. A. Ireland

A Comparison of Milk Production In

The Effect of Winter Feed Levels on Steer Production

Performance and Economic Analysis of Calf-Fed and Yearling Systems for Fall-Born Calves

Comparison of Machine Milkout and Calf Nursing Techniques for Estimating Milk Yields of Various Two-Breed Cross Range Cows.

Using EPDs in a Commercial Herd

Heterosis and Breed Effects for Beef Traits of Brahman Purebred and Crossbred Steers

FACTORS INFLUENCING PROFITABILITY OF FEEDLOT STEERS

Effects of a High-linoleic Sunflower Seed Supplement on Performance and Reproduction of Primiparous Beef Cows and their Calves

Understanding Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs) Scott P. Greiner, Extension Animal Scientist, Virginia Tech

Beef Sire Selection for Cattle Genetic Improvement Program (Updated February 19, 2014)

Selecting and Sourcing Replacement Heifers

Breeding Objectives Indicate Value of Genomics for Beef Cattle M. D. MacNeil, Delta G

Traits of Cattle That Hit the Quality Target Gary D. Fike Feedlot Specialist Certified Angus Beef LLC

Consideration of Weaning Time, Implanting Strategies and Carcass Data on Cow-Calf Decisions

Section 5: Production Management

WHETHER dealing with a commercial

Heifer Management. by Brian Freking Beef Progress Report-1

Impacts of Crossbreeding on Profitability in Vertically Coordinated Beef Industry Marketing Systems

Relationship of Cow Size, Cow Requirements, and Production Issues

Comparison of Weaning System on Cow-Calf Performance and Intake

Beef & sheep business management

BREEDING YEARLING HEIFERS

Relationship of Cow Size, Cow Requirements, and Production Issues

Effect of Angus and Charolais Sires with Early vs Normal Weaned Calves on Feedlot Performance and Carcass Characteristics

BODY COMPOSITION GRAZING OR FEEDLOT STEERS DIFFERING IN AGE AND BACKGROUND

Selecting the Right Genetics (Matching Cows to your Environment) David W. Schafer Arizona Beef Day July 29, 2009

Value-Based Marketing for Feeder Cattle. By Tom Brink, Top Dollar Angus, Inc.

Integration of Pasturing Systems for Cattle Finishing Programs

Beef & sheep business management

Impact of Selection for Improved Feed Efficiency. Phillip Lancaster UF/IFAS Range Cattle Research and Education Center

A COMPARISON OF BEEF CATTLE BREEDING METHODS TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE. D.G. Landblom and J.L. Nelson

EFFECT OF SIRE BREED ON STEER PERFORMANCE, CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS, BOXED BEEF YIELDS AND MEAT TENDERNESS

Influence of Cow BCS and Late Gestation Supplementation: Effects on Cow and Calf Performance 1

Jane Parish Extension Beef Cattle Specialist, Mississippi State University

Proceedings, State of Beef Conference November 7 and 8, 2018, North Platte, Nebraska COW SIZE AND COWHERD EFFICIENCY. Introduction

More cattle are being marketed on carcass. Selection for Carcass Merit. Texas Adapted Genetic Strategies for Beef Cattle IX: Genetics of Carcass Merit

Maternal Versus Terminal Crossbreeding Systems: A Six-Year Study at University of Nevada Gund Research and Demonstration Ranch

The Big Picture: Road ahead for the cattle business

Utah State University Ranch to Rail Summary Report

American Shorthorn Association

Comparison of target breeding weight and breeding date for replacement beef heifers and effects on subsequent reproduction and calf performance 1

Research in Beef Cattle Nutrition and Management

Effective Use Of EPDs. Presented to: Minnesota Beef Producers Presented by: Kris A. Ringwall, Ph. D. NDSU Extension Beef Specialist

Matching Cow Type to the Nutritional Environment

EFFECT OF SLAUGHTER DATE ON PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS QUALITY OF FEEDLOT STEERS. Story in Brief

Mike Davis, The Ohio State University 6/19/14

56% 64% of farms are owned by the same family for 3 generations

A Refresher Course on Finishing Cattle in Tennessee. Genetics, Quality and Efficient Production for Marketing

How to select, grow, and manage replacement heifers W.A. Zollinger and J.B. Carr

Indiana Beef Evaluation and Economics Feeding Program

EPD Info 1/5. Guide to the American Gelbvieh Association Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs)

Performance and carcass characteristics of different cattle types A preliminary report

MCA/MSU Bull Evaluation Program 2016 Buyer Survey and Impact Report

Fall Calving in North Dakota By Brian Kreft

Market specifications for beef cattle

Investigating New Marketing Options to Increase Beef Production in Ontario

Animal response or performance is determined. Genetic-Environmental Interaction. Texas Adapted Genetic Strategies for Beef Cattle II:

Understanding and Utilizing EPDs to Select Bulls

HETEROSIS AND ADDITIVE BREED EFFECTS ON FEEDLOT AND CARCASS TRAITS FROM CROSSING ANGUS AND BROWN SWISS

Proceedings, The State of Beef Conference November 4 and 5, 2014, North Platte, Nebraska BEEF PRODUCTION WITHOUT MATURE COWS

Choices in Breeding Programs to Fit Your Environment

UNIT 6 UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS FOR PRODUCING, BREEDING, AND MARKETING AGRICULTURE ANIMALS

B eef Cattle Management Update

FEEDLOT AND CARCASS DATA: MAKING CENTS AND MAKING DECISIONS

Australian Hereford Selection Indexes

Using Live Animal Carcass Ultrasound Information in Beef Cattle Selection

REPRODUCTION PERFORMANCE FOR COWS SIRED BY HIGH AND LOW MILK EPD ANGUS AND POLLED HEREFORD BULLS - A PRELIMINARY REPORT

CHARACTERIZATION OF HEREFORD AND TWO-BREED ROTATIONAL CROSSES OF HEREFORD W ANGUS AND SIMMENTAL CAllLE: CALF PRODUCTION THROUGH WEANING

EPDs and Reasonable Expectations in Commercial Crossbred Operations

2003 Spring Indiana Beef Evaluation and Economics Feeding Program

Backgrounding Calves Part 1: Assessing the Opportunity

Indiana Beef Evaluation and Economics Feeding Program

Effect of Selected Characteristics on the Sale Price of Feeder Cattle in Eastern Oklahoma: 1997 & 1999 Summary

Welcome to Igenity Brangus and the Power of Confident Selection

Benchmark Angus. Engineering Superior Beef

Pregnancies for Profit. Beef x Dairy Sires

Beef Cattle Management Update

The Cattle Feeding Industry

Got Milk? An Economic Look at Cow Size and Milk. July 13 th, 2015

Factors affecting the price of feeder cattle in New York

The cow-less cow herd

Indiana Beef Evaluation and Economics Feeding Program

Montgomery County Beef Improvement Association Members

Beef - Horse - Poultry - Sheep - Swine. August 2016

Commentary: Increasing Productivity, Meat Yield, and Beef Quality through Genetic Selection, Management, and Technology

Robert S. Wells, Ph.D., PAS Livestock Consultant

EFFICIENCY OF THE COW HERD: BULL SELECTION AND GENETICS

Stocker and Finishing Programs For Fall-Weaned Calves

Creating Premium Beef Maximizing Dairy Profit

A Summary of Feeding Market Cows for the White Fat Cow Market

UNDER 16 MONTH BULL BEEF (SUCKLER)

Unit E Segments of the Animal Industry. Lesson 1 Exploring the Cattle Industry

Forage Systems for Pasture Finishing Beef

EFFECTS OF LIMIT FEEDING ON FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS

Evaluation of the Brahman Breed as Straightbred and Crossbred for Beef Production in South Central Florida 1

Understanding and Using Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs)

2

Transcription:

Comparison of Feedlot Performance and Carcass Traits Among Various Three-Breed Cross Calves C. G. Chenette, R. R. Frahm, A. B. Cobb and J. Eason Story in Brief Feedlot performance and carcass traits were compared among 118 steers and heifers of various three-breed crosses. The heifers were placed in feedlot directly after weaning, and the steers were grazed on wheat pasture and placed in feedlot as yearlings. Shorthorn and Red Poll were used as the sire breeds. On the average, differences in calf performance between these two sire breeds were not large but consistently favored the Shorthorn sires. Calves sired by Shorthorn bulls were in the feedlot six fewer days, gained 0.29 pounds more per day, were 32 pounds heavier at slaughter, and required 0.4 pound less feed per pound of gain than calves sired by Red Poll bulls. These three-breed cross calves were produced by seven different kinds of two-breed cross cows (Hereford x Angus, Simmental x Angus, Simmental x Hereford, Brown Swiss x Angus, Brown Swiss x Hereford,Jersey x Angus, and Jersey x Hereford). Calves from the Jersey cross cows required the least amount of days on feed (129 days) and hence had one of the lightest slaughter weights at 818 pounds. Calves from Brown Swiss cross cows averaged 141 days in feedlot with one of the heaviest final weights at 903 pounds. The Brown Swiss and Simmental crosses averaged 0.35 pounds/day more rapid gain than thejersey crosses but required eight to 12 days longer on feed to grade choice. Calves from Hereford x Angus, Simmental crosses, and Brown Swiss x Hereford co\vs had similar feed efficiency (averaged 7.52 pounds offeed per pound of gain) and were more efficient than the Brown Swiss x Angus and Jersey crosses by 0.65 pounds of feed per pound of gain on the average. Differences among crossbred cow groups with respect to carcass traits were not large. Introduction Beef cattle producers have constantly been searching for ways to increase efficiency of production. Crossbreeding represents a genetic means for markedly improving production efficiency. It has been repeatedly shown that systematic crossbreeding systems can increase percent calf crop weaned and calf weaning weights, such that the pounds of calf weaned per cow in the In cooperation with U.S.D.A., Agricultural Research Service, Southern Region. 80 Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station

breeding herd will be increased 20 to 25 percent. At the present time an extensive research program is underway at the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station to compare the lifetime productivity of various two-breed cross cows mated to a bull of a third breed. It is important to also evaluate feedlot performance and carcass merit of the various three-breed cross calves produced, in order to evaluate various crossbred combinations relative to their total efficiency of producing beef. Experimental Procedures Red Poll and Shorthorn bulls were mated to seven different two-breed cross heifers (Hereford x Angus, Simmental x Angus, Simmental x Hereford, Brown Swiss x Angus, Brown Swiss x Hereford, Jersey x Angus, and Jersey x Hereford) to produce their first calves during the spring of 1975. These two sire breeds were used primarily as an attempt to avoid excessive calving problems with two-year old heifers. Three bulls from each sire breed were used in these matings. The calves were born in January, February, and March of 1975 at the Lake Carl Blackwell Range Research Area and remained with their dams on native grass until they were weaned September 11,1975, at an average age of 205 days. Feedlot performance and carcass merit were evaluated on 118 calves (55 steers and 63 heifers). Following weaning all calves were shipped to the Southwestern Livestock and Forage Research Station at EI Reno, OK. The heifers were placed in feedlot immediately, and the steers were grazed on wheat pasture and placed in the feedlot for finishing as yearlings. Each kind of three-breed cross was randomly assigned a pen in the feeding barn (a total offourteen pens). Both steers and heifers were self-fed the ration shown in Table 1 during their respective finishing phases. Each animal was removed from the finishing pens for slaughter when it was estimated that a choice carcass grade had been attained. Table 1. Finishing ration for crossbred calves Milo Alfalfa Cottonseed hulls Molasses Supplemental pellets1 Ingredient Percent in ration 78 8 4 5 5 100 ISupplt-mcntill pd)('h consisted of67.6 P('IT('l1t ~)\'I)('.1I1 oil meal (44%-). 12 pncml urca, IOpt'ln'nl c<llt-ium carl}()i1.!u',8 p('rn'nt salt plu:>..mrofac. \"ilamin.\. and (..<tn' minnals. 1977 Animal Science Research Report 81

Comparison Results and Discussion of sire breeds Feedlot performance and carcass traits for each sire breed averaged over both sexes and all seven dam breeds are presented in Table 2. The initial on-test weight for calves of both sire groups was similar. Shorthorn cross calves were in the feedlot six fewer days on the average, gained 0.29 pounds more per day, and were 32 pounds heavier at slaughter than calves sired by Red Poll bulls. As a result of being 32 pounds heavier at slaughter and having a 1.2 percent higher dressing percent, the Shorthorn sired calves were 29 pounds heavier in carcass weight. Shorthorn sired calves had 0.16 inches less fat thickness; 0.24 percent less kidney, heart, and pelvic fat; and 0.6 square inches larger rib-eye area and thus were 1.2 percent higher in cutability than the Red Poll sired calves. In addition, Shorthorn cross calves required 0.4 fewer pounds of feed per pound of gain. Differences in performance were not large between these two sire breeds; however, they consistently favored the Shorthorn bulls. Part of this difference may simply reflect differences between the particular bulls used rather than real breed differences. Table 2. Feedlot and carcass traits of three-breed Shorthom and Red Poll bulls cross calves sired by Breed of sire Differences Trait Shorthorn Red Poll (S-RP) Number of animals 59 59 Initial weight, lb. 508 493 15 Final weight, lb. 878 846 32' Days in feedlot 133 139-6' ADG, Ibs./day 2.90 2.61.29' Siaugher weight, lb. 878 846 32. Carcass weight, lb. 539 510 29. Dressing percent 61.4 60.2 1.2. Single fat thickness, inches 0.87 1.03-0.16. KHP, percent 2.69 2.93-0.24. Carcass conformation I 11.1 10.4 0.7' Marbling2 5.7 5.3 0.4' Carcass grade 1 10.6 10.5 0.1 REA, square inches 10.7 10.1 0.6. Cutability, percent 48.0 46.8 1.2. Feed efficiency 7.64 8.03-0.39 (lb. fecd/lb./gain).diffitt.nn ~ig-nificanl at tht..oj pn,h,tbilihy Jewl. Since all animah. ofa bn't-d group were in ont"pt"n. [t.oo dlicienq ("(mid nc11he: ('Sled for...ignific.mct". ICarea ('()I\(()lmiition and ~rad(' ('quivalt'nb: 10=10\\ choin', II =ahragt. ('hoin', 2~larhling '>COIT('(Iuiva)('nts: :)=snmll. 6=lran's. 82 Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station

Table 3. Feedlot performance Breed of dam' HxA, Trait AxH SxA SxH BSxA BSxH JxA JxH Number of animals 28 15 9 13 13 21 19 Initial weight, lb. 447 514 494 523 506 513 507 Final weight, lb. 815 891 885 900 899 818 828 Days in feedlot 139 135 139 141 141 129 129 ADG Ib./day 2.69 2.95 2.94 2.76 2.88 2.50 2.56 Feed efficiency, 7.66 7.53 7.41 8.12 7.49 8.28 8.11 (lb. feed/lb. gain) 1A=Angus,H=Hc:rdind, S=Simmm1al.BS=BrownSwissand J=J('I'M'Y' Comparison of crossbred dam groups Table 3 presents the feedlot performance of three-breed cross calves produced by each two-breed cross dam group averaged over both sire breeds and sexes. The initial on-test weights varied with the Hereford-Angus crosses at 448 pounds being the lightest by 47 pounds. The Brown Swiss crosses, Simmental crosses, and Jersey crosses all were similar in initial on-test weight (average of 508 pounds). All calves were placed on-test the same day and at similar ages, and thus the variation in initial weight among crossbred groups was primarily due to differences in dam milk production and differences in genetic growth potential of the calves. Jersey cross calves required the least amount of days on feed (129 days), and hence had one of the lightest slaughter weights at 818 pounds. The Brown Swiss crosses were in the feedlot the longest (141 days) with one of the heaviest final weights at 903 pounds. The Simmental crosses were similar in final weight (889 pounds) to the Brown Swiss crosses but spent four days less time in the feedlot; while the Hereford-Angus crosses were similar to the Brown Swiss crosses for days on feed (139 days) yet had one of the lightest final weights at 816 pounds. The Brown Swiss and Simmental crosses averaged 0.35 pounds per day more rapid gain than the Jersey crosses but required eight to 12 days longer on feed to grade choice. Pounds offeed required per pound of gain was similar for calves produced by Hereford x Angus, Simmental crosses, and Brown Swiss x Hereford cows (averaged 7.52). This was 0.4 fewer pounds offeed per pound of gain on the average than was required by calves produced by Brown Swiss x Angus and Jersey cross cows. Carcass traits are presented in Table 4 of calves produced by each crossbred dam group averaged over both sire breeds and sexes. The differences in carcass grade were small as each calf was sent to slaughter when an anticipated choice carcass grade was attained. There were very few major differences between calves of various crossbred dam groups for the carcass 1977 Animal Science Research Report 83

Table 4. Carcass traits Breed of dam HxA, Trait AxH SxA SxH BSxA BSxH JxA JxH Number of animals 28 15 9 13 13 21 19 Slaughter weight, lb. 812 891 884 900 899 819 828 Carcass weight, lb. 496 542 545 551 552 495 491 Dressing percent 60.9 60.9 61.5 61.2 61.4 60.3 59.1 Single fat thickness, in. 1.01 0.94 1.04 0.94 0.94 0.87 0.92 KHP, percent 2.80 2.75 2.90 2.89 2.77 2.77 2.80 Carcass conformation' 10.8 10.9 11.5 10.8 11.4 10.0 9.76 Marbling2 5.9 5.9 5.0 4.9 5.5 5.8 5.7 Carcass grade' 10.8 10.8 10.0 10.1 10.7 10.7 11.0 REA, square inches 9.5 10.8 10.9 10.8 10.8 10.0 9.88 Cutability, percent 46.8 47.6 47.0 47.4 47.5 47.9 47.5 ICarcas:-.COnfi)rlll<1tionand rad(' efficiencies: 10=10\\ choice, I) =;I\Tragl' clmin'. 2r..larhlin swn' equi\"alc:nls: 4=slihL ;>=small. 6=u<tcn.. traits. The calves were quite similar in fat thickness (averaged 0.95 inches and ranged between 0.87 inches to 1.01 inches), KHP fat (averaged 2.81 percent and ranged between 2.75 and 2.90 percent), marbling (averaged small amount), grade (averaged low choice), and cutability (averaged 47.4 percent and ranged from 46.8 t047.9 percent). Brown Swiss crosses at 903 pounds and Simmental crosses at 889 pounds were heaviest at slaughter and thus had heavier carcass weights than either the Jersey crosses or Hereford-Angus crosses by at least 47 pounds. The Jersey and Hereford-Angus crosses averaged 816 pounds at slaughter with 493 pound carcasses. The Jersey crosses had a lower dressing percentage (59.7 percent) than all other crosses by at least 1.2 percent, with all other crosses being similar (averaged 61.1 percent). TheJersey crosses lacked carcass conformation by at least nearly one-third of a grade in comparison to other crossbred groups. Brown Swiss crosses and Simmental crosses had larger rib eye arcas than Hereford-Angus crossed calves by 1.2 square inches and Jersey crosses by 1.0 square inch. Overall, differences among calves produced by the seven kinds of crossbred cows used in this study were not very large. This may suggest that a commercial producer may be able to adequately involve several different kinds of crossbred cows in his breeding program and simply mate them all to an unrelated breed of bull. This would permit some flexibility in acquiring crossbred replacement heifers for their herd. 84 Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station