Performance of Hereford and Charolaisx HerefordCrossbred Cattle in Eastern Oregon r Station Bulletin 603 June 1966 Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Corvallis Contents Page Results of Trials 3 Introduction 4 Methods and Procedures 5 First Generation Cross 6 Birth to weaning 6 Post-weaning and yearling 8 Feedlot performance 9 Carcass characteristics 11 Cooking tests and flavor evaluations 11 \Veight comparisons of females 11 Second Generation Cross 13 Calf production comparisons 13 Post-weaning and yearling performance 14 AUTHORS: Joe D. Wallace is Assistant Professor of Animal Sci- ence, R. J. Raleigh is Associate Professor of Animal Nutrition, and W. H. Kennick is Assistant Professor of Animal Science, Oregon State University. The authors wish to thank Lois A. Sather, Depart- ment of Food Science and Technology, Oregon State University, for her assistance in conducting cooking and flavor tests. '2 Performance of Hereford and Charolais x Hereford Crossbred Cattle in Eastern Oregon JOE D. WALLACE, R. J. RALEIGH, and W. H. KENNICK Results of Trials When Hereford cows were mated to Crossbred carcass roasts required a Charolais bull: lesscooking time, had smaller Crossbred calves were 8 pounds cooking losses, and were essen- heavier at birth, 48 pounds heav- tially equal in flavor qualities to ier at weaning, gained .2 pound roasts from Hereford carcasses. more per day during suckling pe- Crossbred females averaged about riod, but graded slightly lower at 100 pounds heavier than Here- weaning than straightbred Here- fords from1 year through 31 ford calves. years of age. Crossbreds gained .3 pound more per day on a \Tjnter growing ra- tion as weaners and .36 pound When first-cross Charolais x Here- more per day on summer range asford heifers were bred to Hereford yearlings than Herefords. sires: Crossbred heifers that were sold Crossbred heifers had lower con- off the range at approximately 16 ception rates but also had lower months of age as feeders aver- mortalityratesin their calves, aged 121 pounds heavier, brought and consequently had a higher less perhundredweight, but weaning percentage than Here- grossed $14.75per head more ford heifers. than Herefords. Crossbred steers gained more (.3 Crossbred heifers' calves were 8 pound) and consumed more feed pounds heavier at birth, gained on a finishing ration, but their .43 pound more per day during net return out of the feedlot was the suckling period, and were 97 slightlylowerthanHereford pounds heavier at weaning than steers. calves from Hereford heifers. Crossbred steercarcasses were Offspring ofcrossbred heifers heavier and leaner with a slightly gained at slightly higher rates as higher estimated percent trimmed weaner calves and as yearlings, edible meat, but had lower mar- sold for the same price per htin- blingscoresandconsequently dredweight as feeders, and grossed graded lower than Hereford steer $18.12 more per head than off- carcasses. spring from Hereford heifers. Introduction One of the most controversial sub-In each case we obtain 40 pounds of jects among cattle producers is that ofcalf weight per 100 pounds of dam crossbreeding. Unfortunately, there isweight. Hybrid vigor may also be ex- still a lack of information on many ofpressed in factors other than increased the problems involved. The many dif-growth rate, such as reduced mortality ferent matings which are possible andand increased mothering ability.In their relationship to various environ-many cases crossbreeding programs, as mental influences have hindered prog-well as other intensified breeding pro- ress of research in this field. grams, have not been successful be- Currentlythebeefindustryis cause: (1) there was a lack of suffi- pressed by consumer demand to pro-cient long-time planning; (2) the pro- duce cattle which yield ]eaner carcasses gram chosen was not manageable on and still maintain the desired tender-the individual ranch; or (3) there was ness and flavor. Consequently, cattle-insufficient advantage to offset added men are looking for animals with su- costsofthe program. No plan of perior muscling that yield a high per-breeding can substitute for a construc- centage of retail cuts with a minimumtive program of selection and culling of trim fat. Opinions on whether cross-for productive traits. breeding in beef cattle will lead to the In the past, crossbred cattle have development of more desirable carcassbeen discounted by most stocker-feeder characteristics are quite diverse. Thebuyers mainly because of their lack of main concern among allcattlepro- color uniformity. More recently, how- (lucers is that beef continue in its po-ever, much of the market discrimina- sition of popularity among the differenttion against crossbred cattle has seem- protein foods. ingly disappeared. This appears to be Therearecertainareasintheespecially true of crossbred cattle whose United States where no existing breedparental breeds are both of European of cattle will perform satisfactorily inorigin. straightbreedingprograms.Cross- The purpose of this bulletin is nei- breeding has been and probably willther to advocate nor to discredit cross- continue to be popular in these areas.breeding of beef cattle, but merely to Another major reason for crossbreed-report results of trials conducted under ing isthat of capitalizing on hybrideastern Oregon conditions where per- vigor. A sound evaluation of hybridformance of Hereford and Charolais x vigor may be difficult to attain. WeightHereford crossbred cattle were com- advantages to offspring which result from hybrid vigor should be measuredpared. The authors are fully aware that on a per cow unit-weight basis. Forthe basic plan of the experiment was example, it may be as economical toby no means adequate to compare total produce 360-pound weaner calves frompopulations ofcattle,sinceallfirst 900-pound cows as to produce 480- crossCharolais x Hereford animals pound calves from 1,200-pound cows.were from one sire. 4 Methods and Procedure Fifty-sixmatureHereford cowsflavor tests. Cooking tests were con- were stratified according to age and in- clucted on a rib roast from each carcass dividual production records and ran-under standardized conditions by the domly allotted to two groups in theDepartment of Food Science and Tech- spring of 1960. During the breedingnologyat Oregon State University. season of 1960, cows in group one wereFollowing the cooking tests, lean and bred to a Charolais bull while those in fatsamples from eachroast were group two were bred to Hereford bullsscored by a trained flavor panel. in a multiple-sire breeding herd. Dur- Part of the Hereford and crossbred ing the 1961 breeding season the mat-femalesresultingfrom eachyear's ing scheme of the two groups was re-mating of groups one and two were re- versed. Offspring from these matingstained and bredbacktoHereford were comparedinpre-\veaningand bulls. These animals represented ap- weaning traits, post-weaning perform-proximately the top 50 percent of each ance on growing rations, and yearlinggroup each year. This phase of the performance on summer range. Steerstudy was conducted so that the pro- calves from these groups were placed ductiveabilityofstraightbredand on a finishing ration about 60 dayscrossbred females could be compared. after weaning and fed for approxi-The production data covering the first mately 220 clays. They were slaugh-two calf crops (as two- and three-year- tered at a commercial packing plantolcls) were evaluated. Wherever possi- where carcass data were obtained. Theble, all data were statistically analyzed. 10-11th rib from the left side of each The Hereford cattle used in this ex- carcass was purchased for cooking andperinlent were from the commercial F] Figure1. A representative group of cows from the Squaw Butte breeding herd, shown on winter feed grounds. Cows of uniform age and productive ability were selected for use in this study. 5 herd of cattle owned by Oregon State Universityandmaintainedatthe Squaw Butte Experiment Station, lo- cated near Burns in southeastern Ore- gon. The herd was assembled in the mid-1930's, and since the late l940's only one line of Hereford bulls (Prince line) has been used. Since the initial establishment, no outside females have been introduced. The Charolais bull used was leased from Keith Mets, Holtville, California. As routine management, the cattle were maintained on native hay mead- ows from mid-October to late April each year and on desert range (sage- Figure 2.Charolais bull which was leased for brush-bunchgrass type), where cattle two breeding seasons for use in this experiment. were grazed on native or crested wheat- grass ranges, the remainder of each year. Cows were bred during a 60-day period in June and July and calvesage temperature for the three colder were dropped during March and April.months of the year is 28° F, while the The calves were weaned in mid-Octo-three warmer months have an average ber and all calves involved in this studytemperature of 64° F. However, tem- were graded by the same grader. peratures from a low of 24° to a high Average annual precipitation for theof 100° F have been recorded on the area is about 11 inches, which comesstation and there is no month which primarily in winter and spring. Aver-can be considered frost-free. First Generation Cross Birth to weaning werecomparablebetweenthetwo Comparisons of the traits of straight-groups. Average daily gain during the bred and crossbred calves from birth sucklingperiodfavoredcrossbred through weaning are summarized forcalves over Herefords by .2 pound. both years in Table 1. Considering bothObviously, a certain amount of hybrid male and female calves, the crossbredsvigor would be expected from cross- averaged 8 pounds heavier at birth anding a line (such as the Hereford line 48 pounds heavier at weaning; how-used inthis study) with any other ever, Hereford calves graded slightlybreed or even with another line within higher at weaning. As expected, thethe breed. In fact, mating a group of crossbred calves showed more earlycows from the Squaw Butte herd to a life vigor than Herefords, althoughHereford bull of the Lionheart line actual losses from birthto weaningresulted in a substantial increase in 6 Figure 3.