Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T13:32:19.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of genotype and stocking density on post-weaning daily gain and meat production per hectare in cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. Mezzadra ,
J. Escuder  and
M. C. Miquel
C. Mezzadra
Affiliation:
Instituto National de Tecnologia Agropecuaria, Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce, 7620 Balcarce (BA), Argentina
J. Escuder
Affiliation:
Instituto National de Tecnologia Agropecuaria, Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce, 7620 Balcarce (BA), Argentina
M. C. Miquel
Affiliation:
Instituto National de Tecnologia Agropecuaria, Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce, 7620 Balcarce (BA), Argentina
Get access

Abstract

With the objective of determining genetic × environmental interaction for beef production under direct grazing conditions, measured as both individual average daily gain (ADG) and per ha (PROD), 160 steers were utilized through 2 years, from two breeds of different growth potential, and four stocking rates (SR) tending to establish different nutritional environments. The breeds were Aberdeen Angus (A) and high-grade Limousin crossbred (L) and the SRs established were 2·25, 2·87, 3-50 and 4·13 steers per ha. The pasture where the steers grazed was Festuca arundinacea. Response variables were analysed by least-squares using a fixed model of year, breed, SR and their two-way interactions. There were highly significant effects (P < 0·01) of the interaction of breed × SR for ADG and PROD. Quadratic and linear regressions (P < 0·01) were adjusted for PROD and ADG on SR respectively using the least-squares means. The proportional superiority of L on A at the lowest SR was 0·27, while at the highest SR the situation was reversed, A gained proportionately 0·32 more weight than L. These results indicated that under limiting conditions of nutrition as generated at the highest SR in this experiment, the small-sized individuals tended to produce meat more efficiently both individually and per ha, the opposite situation being true when nutritional conditions were not restrictive.

Keywords

Beef cattlegenotype environment interactiongrowth ratestocking density
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , August 1992 , pp. 65 - 72
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

Barlow, R. 1981. Experimental evidence for interaction between heterosis and environment in animals. Animal Breeding Abstracts 49: 715–737.Google Scholar
Bolton, R. C, Frahm, R. R., Castree, J. W. and Coleman, S. 1987a. Genotype-environment interactions involving proportion of Brahman breeding and season of birth. I. Calf growth to weaning. Journal of Animal Science 65: 42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, R. C, Frahm, R. R., Castree, J. W. and Coleman, S. 1987b. Genotype-environment interactions involving proportion of Brahman breeding and season of birth. II. Postweaning growth, sexual development and reproductive performance of heifers, journal of Animal Science 65: 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlay, K. and Wilkinson, G. 1963. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Australian journal of Agricultural Research 14: 742–754.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. and 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
Holloway, J. and Butts, W. 1984. Influence of frame size and fatness on seasonal patterns of forage intake, performance and efficiency of Angus cow-calf pairs grazing fescue-legume or fescue pastures. Journal of Animal Science 59: 1411–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, R., Rahnefeld, G., Weiss, G., Fredeen, H. and Lawson, J. 1989. Live body measurements in ten first crosses of beef cows raised in two environments. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 69: 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miquel, M. C, Escuder, J., Cangiano, C. and Sevilla, G. 1990. Efecto del tipo racial y la carga sobre la ganancia de peso por unidad de superficie de novillos en pastoreo. Revista Argentina de Produccion Animal 10: (2), 135–146.Google Scholar
Molinuevo, H. A., Joandet, G. and Miquel, M. C. 1977. Estimación de la eficiencia de produccion de carne en cria e einvernada de rodeos Aberdeen Angus y Charolais. Produccion Animal 5:183–189.Google Scholar
Molinuevo, H. A., Melucci, L. M., Bustamante, J. L. and Miquel, M. C. 1982. Interaccion genetico-ambiental en crecimiento de novillos cruza en condiciones de pastoreo. Proceedings of second world congress of genetics applied to livestock production, Madrid, vol. 8, p. 286.Google Scholar
Mott, C. A. 1960. Grazing pressure and the measurement of pasture production. Proceedings of the eighth grassland congress, pp. 606–611.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1988. SAS/STAT user's guide, release 6.03. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Steane, D. 1983. The significance of genotype-environment interactions in practical sheep breeding in North Europe. Livestock Production Science 10: 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. 1989. Bioenergetics, bioengineering and growth. Animal Production 48:249–269.Google Scholar