Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T20:02:25.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Productive and adaptive trait differences of Simmental, Hereford and Africander × Hereford cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

B. M. Burns ,
J. E. Vercoe  and
C. R. Holmes
B. M. Burns
Affiliation:
Queensland Department of Primary Industries, P.O. Box 10, Richmond, Queensland 4822, Australia
J. E. Vercoe
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Tropical Cattle Research Centre, P.O. Box 5545, Rockhampton Mail Centre, Queensland 4701, Australia
C. R. Holmes
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Tropical Cattle Research Centre, P.O. Box 5545, Rockhampton Mail Centre, Queensland 4701, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Adaptive and productive traits were studied in three genotypes of cattle, Simmental (≥ 7/8 Simmental with residual Hereford) (S), Hereford (H) and F2et seq. Africander × Hereford (AH), selected from the 1985 and the 1986 branded steer groups (Years 1 and 2, respectively) fed low- and high-quality diets.

There were significant (P < 0·01) differences between years, breeds and diets for the two groups for live weights at the beginning and end of the feeding period, voluntary feed intake and fasting heat production. However, there was no breed × year interaction except in heat production per unit live weight because the AH had a higher heat production per kg than the H in Year 1 but lower in Year 2. Significantly lower values for feed intake (P < 0·01) and heat production (P <0·01) were recorded for S relative to AH and H when expressed on a live-weight basis; however, the ratio of intake to heat production was similar for all breeds.

The S breed had the heaviest birth weights and highest pre-weaning weight gains (P < 0·01) and the AH, despite having birth weights similar to that of the H, had higher pre-weaning live-weight gains (P < 0·01). There were significant (P < 0·01) breed differences for adaptive traits (except for the estimate of helminth resistance), with the AH being more tick- and heat-resistant and having sleeker coats than the other breeds.

There were no significant correlations between any adaptive trait and pre-weaning gain despite the fact that ticks, helminths and heat loads were evident.

This experiment shows that provided a low plane of nutrition is the only stress imposed on growing cattle, breeds such as the S will perform similarly to British breeds and may perform slightly better.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 111 , Issue 3 , December 1988 , pp. 475 - 480
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Brody, S. (1945). Bioenergetics and Growth. New York: Reinhold.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. (1973). Comparative drought resistance of Bos indicus and Bos taurus crossbred herds in Central Queensland. 2. Relative mortality rates, calf birth weights, and weights and weight changes of breeding cows. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 13, 117–126.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. (1976 a). A model of reasons for breed differences in growth of cattle in the tropics. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 11, 85–88.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. (1976 b). The comparative incidence of foot rot in Bos taurus and Bos indicus cattle. Australian Veterinary Journal 52, 228–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frisch, J. E. & Vercoe, J. E. (1977). Food intake, eating rate, weight gains, metabolic rate and efficiency of feed utilization in Bos taurus and Bos indicus crossbred cattle. Animal Production 25, 343–358.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. & Vercoe, J. E. (1984). An analysis of growth of different cattle genotypes reared in different environments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103, 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleiber, M. (1961). The Fire of Life. An Introduction to Animal Energetics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Mason, I. L. (1971). Comparative beef performance of the large cattle breeds of Western Europe. Animal Breeding Abstracts 39, 1–29.Google Scholar
Roberts, F. H. S., O'Sullivan, P. J. & Riek, R. F. (1951). The significance of faecal egg counts in the diagnosis of parasitic gastro-enteritis of cattle. Australian Veterinary Journal 27, 16–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seifert, G. W. (1971). Ecto- and endoparasitic effects on the growth rates of Zebu crossbred and British cattle in the field. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 22, 839–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speck, N. H., Wright, R. L., Sweeney, F. C., Nix, H. A. & Perry, R. A. (1968). Land Systems of the Dawson Fitzroy Area, Part 3. CSIRO Division of Land Research, Land Research Series No. 21. Australia: CSIRO.Google Scholar
Tierney, T. J., Wythes, J. R., Powell, E. E., Crotty, K. J., Shorthose, W. R. & Rudder, T. H. (1986). Liveweight gains and carcass traits of highgrade Simmental, Hereford, Africander × Hereford and Brahman × Hereford feedlot yearling steers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 26, 651–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, H. G. (1984). Variation in rectal temperature of cattle in a tropical environment and its relation to growth rate. Animal Production 38, 417–427.Google Scholar
Turner, H. G. & Schleger, A. V. (1960) The significance of coat type in cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 11, 645–663.Google Scholar
Turner, H. G. & Short, A. J. (1972). Effects of field infestations of gastrointestinal helminths and of the cattle tick (Boophilus microplus) on growth of three breeds of cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, H. G. & Taylor, St C. S. (1983). Dynamic factors in models of energy utilization with particular reference to maintenance requirements of cattle. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 42, 135–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, H. G. & Thornton, R. F. (1966). A respiration chamber for cattle. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 6, 413–419.Google Scholar
Vercoe, J. E. (1970). The fasting metabolism of Brahman, Africander and Hereford × Shorthorn cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 24, 599–606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vercoe, J. E. & Frisch, J. E. (1981). Animal breeding for improved productivity. In Nutritional Limits to Animal Production from Pastures (ed. Hacker, J. B.), pp. 327–342. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at St Lucia, Queensland, Australia, 24–25 August 1981.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F., Brockway, J. M. & Smith, J. S. (1974). Prediction of the energy requirements for growth in beef cattle. 1. The relevance of fasting metabolism. Animal Production 19, 127–139.Google Scholar
Wharton, R. H. & Utech, K. B. W. (1970). The relation between engorgement and dropping of Boophilus microplus (Canestrini) (Ixodidae) to the assessment of tick numbers on cattle. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 9, 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar