Hostname: page-component-65f69f4695-tzd6m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-29T16:54:12.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of genotype × environment interactions on biological efficiency in beef cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2016

I. A. Wright ,
J. R. Jones ,
T. J. Maxwell ,
A. J. F. Russel  and
E. A. Hunter
I. A. Wright
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler Aberdeen AB9 2QJ
J. R. Jones
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Bronydd Mawr Research Station, Trecastle, Brecon, Powys LD3 8RD
T. J. Maxwell
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler Aberdeen AB9 2QJ
A. J. F. Russel
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler Aberdeen AB9 2QJ
E. A. Hunter
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service, James Clerk Maxwell Building, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to examine the response of three genotypes of beef cows to contrasting levels of nutrition supplied from grazed pasture. Twenty-two Hereford × Friesian (HF), 20 Aberdeen Angus × Friesian (AF) and 24 Welsh Black (WB) spring-calving beef cows with their Charolais-cross calves were used in 4 years consecutively. During the summer grazing period they grazed permanent pasture maintained at either 4 to 5 cm (short) or 7 to 8 cm (tall) sward surface height. Sward height treatment significantly (P < 0·001) affected cow and calf live-weight gain (0·498 v. 0·041 (s.e.d. 0·0405) kg/day and 1·12 v. 0·90 (s.e.d. 0·021) kg/day for cow and calf live-weight gain on the tall and short swards respectively). The live-weight gains of the HF and WB cows were similar, but the AF cows gained less weight on the tall sward and lost weight on the short sward. Calf live-weight gain reflected cow milk yield, with the calves from HF and AF cows having similar live weight gains (1·06 and 1·02 kg/day respectively) and those from WB cows having lower gains (0·95 kg/day; P < 0·001). The effect of sward height on calf live-weight gain was greatest in the WB-born calves because of the lower milk yield from WB cows. Body chemical composition changes of cows were predicted from live weight and body condition score, using prediction equations derived from separate groups of cows which were slaughtered at a range of body compositions for determination of chemical composition. Energy balances, calculated from changes in chemical composition, showed the AF cows to have the lowest energy balances with the WB cows the highest. Calculation of energetic efficiency and land use efficiency of weaned calf production taking account of annual food requirements indicated that the HF cows were most efficient, and the WB cows least efficient. The effect of increasing nutritional environment (as represented by sward height treatment) was such as to increase energetic efficiency for all genotypes, but land use efficiency was increased for HF and AF cows, and decreased for WB cows. These results indicate the factors such as size of cows, milk yield potential and pattern of nutrient partitioning can influence energetic land use efficiency of weaned calf production, and that important interactions between genotype and nutritional environment can occur in different measures of efficiency.

Keywords

beef cowsefficiencygenotype environment interaction.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 197 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1994

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

Agricultural Research Council. 1980. Nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Alexander, R. H. and McGowan, M. 1966. The routine determination of in vitro digestibility of organic matter in forages — an investigation of the problems associated with continuous large-scale operation. Journal of the British Grassland Society 21: 140–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, P. J., Bishop, A. H. and Board, C. T. 1974. Grazing behaviour of steers. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 10: 303–306.Google Scholar
Barlow, R., Ellis, K. J., Williamson, P. J., Costigan, P., Stephenson, P. D., Rose, G. and Mears, P. T. 1988. Dry matter intake of Hereford and first-cross cows measured by controlled release of chromic oxide on three pasture systems. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 110: 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, R. and Hearnshaw, H. 1988. Size by environment interactions on maternal traits of cattle. Proceedings of the third world congress on sheep and beef cattle breeding, Paris, vol. 2, pp. 53–71.Google Scholar
Barthram, G. T. 1986. Experimental techniques: the HFRO swardstick. Biennial report, Hill Farming Research Organisation 1984–85, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar
Bines, J. A., Suzuki, S. and Balch, C. C. 1969. The quantitative significance of long-term regulation of food intake in the cow. British Journal of Nutrition 23: 695–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrell, C. L. and Jenkins, T. G. 1985. Cow type and the nutritional environment: nutritional aspects. Journal of Animal Science 61: 725–741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzhugh, H. A. 1978. Animal size and efficiency, with special reference to the breeding female. Animal Production 27: 393–401.Google Scholar
Garnsworthy, P. C. 1988. The effect of energy reserves at calving on performance of dairy cows. In Nutrition and lactation in the dairy cow (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C.), Proceedings of the forty-sixth University of Nottingham, Easter School in Agricultural Science. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. and Wilkinson, J. M. 1967. The relationship between live-weight and herbage intake in grazing cattle. Animal Production 9: 365–376.Google Scholar
Illius, A. W. and Gordon, I. J. 1987. The allometry of food intake in grazing ruminants. Journal of Animal Ecology 56: 989–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, T. G. and Ferrell, C. L. 1992. Lactation characteristics of nine breeds of cattle fed various quantities of dietary energy. Journal of Animal Science 78: 1652–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1987. GENSTAT 5 reference manual. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Le Du, Y. L. P., Macdonald, A. J. and Peart, J. N. 1979. Comparison of two techniques for estimating the milk production of suckler cows. Livestock Production Science 6: 277–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowman, B. G., Scott, N. A. and Somerville, S. H. 1976. Condition scoring of cattle. Revised edition. Bulletin, East of Scotland College of Agriculture no. 6.Google Scholar
Mayes, R. W., Lamb, C. S. and Colgrove, P. M. 1986. The use of dosed and herbage n-alkanes as markers for the determination of herbage intake. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 107: 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montano-Bermudez, M. and Nielsen, M. K. 1990. Biological efficiency to weaning and to slaughter of crossbred beef cattle with different genetic potential for milk. Journal of Animal Science 68: 2297–2309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, C. A., Baker, R. L., Hickey, S. M., Johnson, D. L., Cullen, N. G. and Wilson, J. A. 1993. Evidence of genotype by environment interaction for reproductive and maternal traits in beef cattle. Animal Production 56: 69–83.Google Scholar
Morris, C. A. and Wilton, W. 1976. Influence of body size on the biological efficiency of cows: a review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 56: 613–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D. and Thompson, R. 1971. Recovery of interblock information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58: 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. and Terry, R. A. 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18: 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oijen, M., Montano-Bermudez, M. and Nielsen, M. K. 1993. Economical and biological efficiencies of beef cattle differing in level of milk production. Journal of Animal Science 71: 44–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, C. H., David, D. J., and Iismaa, O. 1962. The determination of chromic oxide in faeces samples by atomic absorption spectrometry. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 59: 381–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, I. A. and Russel, A. J. F. 1984a. Partition of fat, body composition and body condition score in mature cows. Animal Production 38: 23–32.Google Scholar
Wright, I. A. and Russel, A. J. F. 1984b. Estimation in vivo of the chemical composition of the bodies of mature cows. Animal Production 38: 33–44.Google Scholar
Wright, I. A. and Russel, A. J. F. 1987. The effect of sward height on beef cow performance and on the relationship between calf milk and herbage intakes. Animal Production 44: 363–370.Google Scholar
Wright, I. A., Russel, A. J. F. and Hunter, E. A. 1986. The use of body condition scoring to ration beef cows in late pregnancy. Animal Production 43: 391–396.Google Scholar
Wright, I. A. and Whyte, T. K. 1989. Effects of sward surface height on the performance of continuously stocked spring-calving beef cows and their calves. Grass and Forage Science 44: 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar