Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-xlmdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-13T17:00:54.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Production and carcass traits of purebred Nordic Red and Nordic Red×beef breed crossbred bulls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2013

A. HUUSKONEN ,
M. PESONEN ,
H. KÄMÄRÄINEN  and
R. KAUPPINEN
A. HUUSKONEN*
Affiliation:
MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Animal Production Research, FI-92400 Ruukki, Finland
M. PESONEN
Affiliation:
MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Animal Production Research, FI-92400 Ruukki, Finland
H. KÄMÄRÄINEN
Affiliation:
Savonia University of Applied Sciences, P O Box 72, FI-74101 Iisalmi, Finland
R. KAUPPINEN
Affiliation:
Savonia University of Applied Sciences, P O Box 72, FI-74101 Iisalmi, Finland
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: arto.huuskonen@mtt.fi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The objective of the current study is to determine the beef production traits of purebred Nordic Red (NR) and NR×beef breed crossbred bulls. The data collected from slaughterhouses included observations of 164 812 purebred NR, 2329 NR×Aberdeen Angus, 1466 NR×Blonde d'Aquitaine, 1044 NR×Charolais, 782 NR×Hereford, 5293 NR×Limousin and 1270 NR×Simmental bulls. For estimating valuable cuttings, a separate dataset including a total of 16 827 observations was collected. Crossbreeding NR cows with late-maturing breeds (Blonde d'Aquitaine, Charolais, Limousin or Simmental) had favourable effects on carcass gain, conformation and proportion of high-value joints of the progeny when compared with purebred NR bulls. No advantages in proportion of valuable cuttings seemed to be obtained by crossbreeding with Aberdeen Angus or Hereford breeds, while the improvements in gain and conformation were intermediate compared with the late-maturing crossbreds. A feeding experiment comprised 36 bulls: nine purebred NR, nine NR×Aberdeen Angus (NR×Ab), nine NR×Limousin (NR×Li) and nine NR×Blonde d'Aquitaine (NR×Ba). The animals were offered total mixed ration (TMR) ad libitum. The dry matter (DM) of the TMR consisted of grass silage (500 g/kg DM), rolled barley (425 g/kg DM) and rapeseed meal (75 g/kg DM). There were no differences in DM, energy or nutrient intakes between NR and crossbred bulls during the feeding experiment. Instead, the carcass gain of the NR×Ba bulls was 13% higher than that of the pure NR bulls. In addition, the carcass gain of the NR×Li bulls tended to be 8% higher than that of the NR bulls. The feed (kg DM/kg carcass gain) and energy (MJ/kg carcass gain) conversion rates of the NR×Ba bulls tended to be better compared with purebred NR bulls. There were no differences in feed or energy conversion between NR, NR×Ab and NR×Li bulls. In conclusion, crossbreeding, especially with late-maturing bulls, largely improved carcass production compared with purebred NR bulls. The feeding experiment indicates that there is no difference in DM intake between pure NR and crossbred bulls when animals are fed with high-energy rations. Therefore, differences in growth and carcass traits describe well the economic superiority of crossbreds compared with pure dairy bulls from beef producers’ point of view.

Type
Animal Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 152 , Issue 3 , June 2014 , pp. 504 - 517
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Alberti, P., Panea, B., Sañudo, C., Olleta, J. L., Ripoll, G., Ertbjerg, P., Christensen, M., Gigli, S., Failla, S., Concetti, S., Hocquette, J. F., Jailler, R., Rudel, S., Renand, G., Nute, G. R., Richardson, R. I. & Williams, J. L. (2008). Live weight, body size and carcass characteristics of young bulls of fifteen European breeds. Livestock Science 114, 19–30.Google Scholar
Andersen, B. B., Liboriussen, T., Thysen, I., Kousgaard, K. & Buchter, L. (1976). Crossbreeding experiment with beef and dual-purpose sire breeds on Danish dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 3, 227–238.Google Scholar
Bartoň, L., Řehák, D., Teslík, V., Bureš, D. & Zahrádková, R. (2006). Effect of breed on growth performance and carcass composition of Aberdeen Angus, Charolais, Hereford and Simmental bulls. Czech Journal of Animal Science 51, 47–53.Google Scholar
Boettcher, P. (2005). Breeding for improvement of functional traits in dairy cattle. Italian Journal of Animal Science 4 (Suppl. 3), 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerchiaro, I., Cassandro, M., Dal Zotto, R., Carnier, P. & Gallo, L. (2007). A field study on fertility and purity of sex-sorted cattle sperm. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2538–2542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, B., Keane, M. G., O'Kiely, P. & Kenny, D. A. (2007). Effects of breed type, silage harvest date and pattern of offering concentrates on intake, performance and carcass traits of finishing steers. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 46, 149–168.Google Scholar
Dal Zotto, R., De Marchi, M., Dalvit, C., Cassandro, M., Gallo, L., Carnier, P. & Bittante, G. (2007). Heritabilities and genetic correlations of body condition score and calving interval with yield, somatic cell score, and linear type traits in Brown Swiss cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 5737–5743.Google Scholar
Dal Zotto, R., Penasa, M., De Marchi, M., Cassandro, M., Lopez-Villalobos, N. & Bittante, G. (2009). Use of crossbreeding with beef bulls in dairy herds: effect on age, body weight, price, and market value of calves sold at livestock auctions. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3053–3059.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, M. H., Grundy, H. F. & Page, S. (1992). Evaluation of Piemontese cross Friesian steers and heifers on silage-based diets. Animal Production 54, 500 (Abstract).Google Scholar
EC (2006). Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2006 of 24 July 2006 concerning the Community scale for the classification of carcasses of adult bovine animals. Official Journal of the European Union L 214, 1–6.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. (2007). Voluntary Food Intake and Diet Selection in Farm Animals. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Geay, Y. & Robelin, J. (1979). Variation of meat production capacity in cattle due to genotype and level of feeding: genotype nutrition interaction. Livestock Production Science 6, 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güngör, M., Alçiçek, A. & Önenç, A. (2003). Feedlot performance and slaughter traits of Friesian, Piemontese×Friesian and Limousin×Friesian young bulls under intensive beef production system in Turkey. Journal of Applied Animal Research 24, 129–136.Google Scholar
Herva, T., Virtala, A.-M., Huuskonen, A., Saatkamp, H. W. & Peltoniemi, O. (2009). On-farm welfare and estimated daily carcass gain of slaughtered bulls. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 59, 104–120.Google Scholar
Herva, T., Huuskonen, A., Virtala, A.-M. & Peltoniemi, O. (2011). On-farm welfare and carcass fat score of bulls at slaughter. Livestock Science 138, 159–166.Google Scholar
Hohenboken, W. D. (1999). Applications of sexed semen in cattle production. Theriogenology 52, 1421–1433.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A. (2011). Effects of barley grain compared to commercial concentrate or rapeseed meal supplementation on performance of growing dairy bulls offered grass silage-based diet. Agricultural and Food Science 20, 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huuskonen, A. & Joki-Tokola, E. (2010). Performance of growing dairy bulls offered diets based on silages made of whole-crop barley, whole-crop wheat, hairy vetch and grass. Agricultural and Food Science 19, 116–126.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A., Tuomisto, L., Joki-Tokola, E. & Kauppinen, R. (2009). Animal performance and carcass characteristics of growing Hereford bulls under insulated, uninsulated and outdoor housing conditions in Northern Finland. Agricultural and Food Science 18, 16–26.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A., Huumonen, M., Joki-Tokola, E. & Tuomisto, L. (2011). Effects of different liquid feeding strategies during the pre-weaning period on the performance and carcass characteristics of dairy bull calves. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 61, 187–195.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A., Pesonen, M., Kämäräinen, H. & Kauppinen, R. (2013). A comparison of purebred Holstein-Friesian and Holstein-Friesian×beef breed bulls for beef production and carcass traits. Agricultural and Food Science 22, 262–271.Google Scholar
Illius, A. W. & Gordon, I. J. (1991). Prediction of intake and digestion in ruminants by a model of rumen kinetics integrating animal size and plant characteristics. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 116, 145–157.Google Scholar
Illius, A. W. & Jessop, N. S. (1996). Metabolic constraints on voluntary intake in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 74, 3052–3062.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G. (1994). Productivity and carcass composition of Friesian, Meuse-Rhine-Issel (MRI)×Friesian and Belgian Blue×Friesian steers. Animal Production 59, 197–208.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G. (2011). Beef Cross Breeding of Dairy and Beef Cows. Grange Beef Research Centre Occasional Series No. 8. Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland: Teagasc.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G. & Allen, P. (1998). Effects of production system intensity on performance, carcass composition and meat quality of beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 56, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, M. G. & Allen, P. (2002). A comparison of Friesian-Holstein, Piemontese×Friesian-Holstein and Romagnola×Friesian-Holstein steers for beef production and carcass traits. Livestock Production Science 78, 143–158.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G. & Moloney, A. P. (2010). Comparison of pasture and concentrate finishing of Holstein Friesian, Aberdeen Angus×Holstein Friesian and Belgian Blue×Holstein Friesian steers. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 49, 11–26.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G. & More O'Ferrall, G. J. (1992). Comparison of Friesian, Canadian Hereford×Friesian and Simmental×Friesian steers for growth and carcass composition. Animal Production 55, 377–387.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G., More O'Ferrall, G. J. & Connolly, J. (1989). Growth and carcass composition of Friesian, Limousin×Friesian and Blonde d'Aquitaine×Friesian steers. Animal Production 48, 353–365.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G., More O'Ferrall, G. J., Connolly, J. & Allen, P. (1990). Carcass composition of serially slaughtered Friesian, Hereford×Friesian and Charolais×Friesian steers finished on two dietary energy levels. Animal Production 50, 231–243.Google Scholar
Langholz, H. J. (1990). High yielding cattle populations – concurring and compatible traits with special reference to reproductive efficiency. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 25, 206–214.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T., Fowler, V. & Novakofski, J. (2012). Growth of Farm Animals. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
MAFF (1984). Energy Allowances and Feeding Systems for Ruminants. ADAS Reference book 433. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Manninen, M., Honkavaara, M., Jauhiainen, L., Nykänen, A. & Heikkilä, A.-M. (2011). Effects of grass-red clover silage digestibility and concentrate protein concentration on performance, carcass value, eating quality and economy of finishing Hereford bulls reared in cold conditions. Agricultural and Food Science 20, 151–168.Google Scholar
McGee, M., Keane, M. G., Neilan, R., Moloney, A. P. & Caffrey, P. J. (2005). Production and carcass traits of high dairy genetic merit Holstein, standard dairy genetic merit Friesian and Charolais×Holstein-Friesian male cattle. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44, 215–231.Google Scholar
Moisio, T. & Heikonen, M. (1989). A titration method for silage assessment. Animal Feed Science and Technology 22, 341–353.Google Scholar
More O'Ferrall, G. J. & Keane, M. G. (1990). A comparison for live weight and carcass production of Charolais, Hereford and Friesian steer progeny from Friesian cows finished on two energy levels and serially slaughtered. Animal Production 50, 19–28.Google Scholar
MTT (2013). Feed Tables and Nutrient Requirements. Jokioinen: MTT Agrifood Research Finland. Available from: http://www.mtt.fi/feedtables (verified 1 May 2013).Google Scholar
Nelson, L. A., Beavers, G. D. & Stewart, T. S. (1982). Beef×beef and dairy×beef females mated to Angus and Charolais sires. II. Calf growth, weaning rate and cow productivity. Journal of Animal Science 54, 1150–1159.Google Scholar
Nousiainen, J., Ahvenjärvi, S., Rinne, M., Hellämäki, M. & Huhtanen, P. (2004). Prediction of indigestible cell wall fraction of grass silage by near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Animal Feed Science and Technology 115, 295–311.Google Scholar
Pesonen, M., Honkavaara, M. & Huuskonen, A. (2012). Effect of breed on production, carcass traits and meat quality of Aberdeen Angus, Limousin and Aberdeen Angus×Limousin bulls offered a grass silage-grain-based diet. Agricultural and Food Science 21, 361–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesonen, M., Honkavaara, M., Kämäräinen, H., Tolonen, T., Jaakkola, M., Virtanen, V. & Huuskonen, A. (2013). Effects of concentrate level and rapeseed meal supplementation on performance, carcass characteristics, meat quality and valuable cuts of Hereford and Charolais bulls offered grass silage-barley-based rations. Agricultural and Food Science 22, 151–167.Google Scholar
Root, T. & Huhtanen, P. (1998). Barley fibre and wet distillers’ solubles in the diet of growing cattle. Agricultural and Food Science in Finland 7, 357–366.Google Scholar
Wheeler, T. L., Cundiff, L. V., Shackelford, S. D. & Koohmaraie, M. (2005). Characterization of biological types of cattle (cycle VII): Carcass, yield, and longissimus palatability traits. Journal of Animal Science 83, 196–207.Google Scholar
Wolfová, J., Wolf, J., Kvapilik, J. & Kica, J. (2007). Selection for profit in cattle: II. Economic weights for dairy and beef sires in crossbreeding systems. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2456–2467.Google Scholar