Comparison of Charolais and Limousin As Terminal Cross Sire Breeds
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
COMPARISON OF CHAROLAIS AND LIMOUSIN AS TERMINAL CROSS SIRE BREEDS By JOHN MICHEAL DHUYVETTER Bachelor of Science North Dakota State University Fargo, North Dakota 1978 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE May, 1984 "'f\--..es~~ \ ;4 &li o.s~s~. Q..~~·l - COMPARISON OF CHAROLAIS AND LIMOUSIN AS TERMINAL CROSS SIRE BREEDS Thesis Approved: Thesis Adviser bean of the Graduate College ii 1181111 J ACKNOWLEDGMt;NTS Sincere appreciation and thanks are extended to Dr. R. R. Frahm for providing me the opportunity to make this study, and for his excellent guidance and counsel as major adviser throughout the course of this study. Thanks are also extended to Dr. K. S. Lusby and Dr. R. P. Wetteman for serving on my graduate committee. I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. J. V. Whiteman and the Oklahoma State University Animal Science Department for the opportunity to continue my education. I wish to thank Don Marshall and Debra Aaron for their assistance in collection of data, and all the other graduate students for their friendship and encouragement. A special thanks to my wife Sharon for her much needed patience, understanding, and support. I wish also to express appreciation to my sister Marion, brother-in-law Kris, and family for their special friendship, love, and support. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Albert and Mary Lou Dhuyvetter, and brothers and sisters for their love, understanding, and support which have allowed me to continue my education and produce this manuscript. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page r. INTRODUCTION. 1 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE. 3 Benefits of Crossbreeding •••• 3 Heterosis Effects . • • • • • • 3 Combining Breed Characteristics • 5 Breed Complementarity •.• 6 Crossbreeding System • • . • • • • • • 9 Static Terminal-Sire ••.•.•• 9 Rotational. • • . • • • • • • • 12 Combination Rotational-Terminal Sire. • 14 Terminal Sire Breeds • • • • • • • • 16 Charolais and Limousin Comparison • 17 Characters Related to Female Reproduction and Calf Survival. 17 Size and Growth Characters. 20 Carcass Characters •••.••..••. 24 Summary. • . • . • . • 28 Literature Cited • . • • • • • . • 31 III. COMPARISON OF LIMOUSIN AND CHAROLAIS AS TERMINAL CROSS SIREBREEDS . • • • • 37 Summary. • . • • • . • . • • • . • • . • . 3 7 Introduction • • • . • • . • • • • • • • 38 Materials and Methods. • • • • . • • • • . • 40 Experimental Design • • • • 40 Management and Data Collection.. • • • • 41 Statistical Analysis. • • • • • • • 45 Results and Discussion . • • • • • • • • • • 46 Analysis of Variance. • . • . • • • • 46 Birth and Weaning Traits. • • • 56 Feedlot Traits. • • • • 58 Carcass Traits. • • • • . • • • • • • • 62 Economic Efficiency • • • • • • . • 65 General Conclusions • • • • 70 Literature Cited • . • . • • • . • • . 72 APPENDIX • 76 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Average Heterosis and Maximum Difference in Performance Between Breed Crosses • • • • 4 II. Selection Emphasis Associated with Function 8 III. Comparison of Crossbreeding Systems • • • • 10 IV. Percent Calving of Charolais and Limousin Sired Calves. • . • • • • •..• o •• o 19 v. Birth Weight of Charolais and Limousin Sired Crossbred Calves. • • • • • • 21 VI. Weaning Weight of Charolais and Limousin Sired Calves. • . • • • . • • . 21 VII. Postweaning Average Daily Gain and Feed Conversion of Charolais and Limousin Sired Crossbred Calves. 0 0 0 . 23 VIII. Dressing Percent of Crossbred Cattle Sired by Charolais and Limousin Sires . 26 IX. Number Sires Used by Year . 42 X. Finishing Ration. 42 XI. Sources of Variation Included in Reduced Model for Birth and Weaning Traits. •· . 47 XII. Sources of Variation Included in Reduced Model for Feedlot Traits. 48 XIII. Sources of Variation Included in Reduced r-todel for Carcass Traits. 0 . 49 XIV. Sources of Variation Included in Reduced Model for Feed Efficiency . 50 XV. Mean Squares for Birth and Weaning Traits . 51 XVI. Mean Squares for Feedlot Traits . 53 v Table Page XVII. Mean Squares for Carcass Traits ••. 54 XVIII. Mean Squares for Marbling Score . 55 XIX. Mean Squares for Feed Efficiency. • • • • 55 XX. Least Square Means for Birth and Weaning Traits . ............... 57 XXI. Least Square Means for Feedlot Traits •• . 59 XXII. Least Square Means by Subclass for Traits with Significant Breed of Sire Interactions. 60 XXIII. Least Square Means for Carcass Traits •• . 63 XXIV. Comparison of Cow-Calf and Feedlot Returns Associated with Sirebreed ••.•.•• 68 XXV. Description of Calving Difficulty Scores . 77 XXVI. Description of Weaning Condition Scores . 77 XXVII. Description of Conformation Scores. 78 XXVIII. Description of Marbling Scores. 79 XXVIX. Description of Carcass Grades . 79 XXX. Description of Model for Analyses of Birthr Weaning, and Feedlot Traits . 80 XXXI. Description of Model for Analyses of Carcass Traits ••••••••• 81 XXXII. Description of Model for Analysis of Marbling Score. • • • • • • • • 82 XXXIII. Description of Model for Analysis of Feed Efficiency • • . • . • • • . 83 XXXIV. Cow-Calf Inputs Used in Economic Evaluation • • 84 XXXV. Summary of Costs (Per Head) Used in Economic Evaluation. • • • • • • • 86 XXXVI. Summary of Receipts Used in Economic Evaluation of Cow-Calf Phase. • .• 87 XXXVII. Feedlot Inputs Used in Economic Evaluation and Summary of Costs and Receipts (per Head) • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • 88 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Crossbreeding has become widely advocated and accepted as a system of mating in commercial beef production. Hybrid vigor in crossbred cattle has been well establ1shed through experimentation to be of economic importance for many component characters of productivity. In addition, major differences among breeds have been demonstrated for most characters contributing to production efficiency. Differences in genetic merit of breeds can contribute to increased productivity by combining breeds to synchronize levels of performance to production conditions. Also maternal and sire breeds, differentiated by selection for characters of greatest economic importance associated with their specialized function, can be crossed in a complementary way in order to further improve efficiency within the production system. Breed differences associated with additive etfects ot genes are important considerations in selecting breeds to be used in a production system and in planning crossbreeding systems. Numerous research studies have been conducted and are currently underway to evaluate breed characteristics associated with maternal and paternal function and to 1 2 identify specific breed combinations that are most pro~uctive and efficient under given mating systems and particular environmental and management conditions. This study is a portion of an extensive research project in progress at the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station designed to evaluate lifetime productivity of various two breed cross cows when mated to sires of a third breed. This study focuses on the selection of the terminal sire breed to maximize production fro• such a crossbreeding scheme. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Benefits of Systematic Crossbreeding Heterosis Effects In a review of crossbreeding experiments, Long <1980) summarized heterosis levels for various characters associated with beef production. Heterosis was significant for most characters related to reproduction, survivability, and growth rate associated with crossbred cows and calves as shown in Table I. These heterosis estimates indicate non additive gene action is responsible for significant improvement in crossbreds relative to the average performance of purebreds for these characters. Most of the heterotic effects for carcass traits are a function of growth, and are absent when adjusted for carcass weight (Cundiff, 1970). The cumulative effects of heterosis on traits that contribute to the weight of calf weaned per cow exposed to breeding, increases productivity over 20 percent with crosses among breeds of Bos Taraus beef cattle (Gregory et al.r 1965; Cundiff et al., 1974, 1980). Research suggests heterosis levels are greater between breeds with greater genetic diversity and productivity increases between 3 4 TABLE I AVERAGE HETEROSIS AND MAXIHUM DIFFERENCE IN PERFORMANCE BETWEEN BREED CROSSESa Average Maximum Difference Heterosis Between BrEed Crosses Characters of Calf Calving rate of cows 0 16 Survival at birth 2 10 Survival to weaning 3 16 Gestation length 0 4 Calving difficulty 0-7 29 Birth weight 4 33 Preweaning ADG 4 38 Weaning weight 5 35 Postweaning ADG 6 28 Yearling weight 4 23 Mature weight 2.5 34 Dressing percent 0 4 Longissimus muscle area 3 25 Fat thickness 5 78 Quality grade 1 35 Characters of Cow Age at puberty -3 29 Calving rate 9 10 Calf survival at birth -1 3 Calf survival to weaning 1 6 Calf weaning weight 8 17 Milk yield 6 30 aLong, c. R. 1980. Crossbreeding for Beef Production. Review of crossbreeding experiments. J. Anim. Sci. 51:1197. b% Maximum Difference = Maximum breed value - minimum breed value ~ mean breed value X 100. 5 crosses among ~ Taraus and ~ Indicus breeds of cattle may be much greater (Cartwright et al., 1965; Koger et al.r 1975). Over 60% of the cumulative heterosis contributing to increased proauctivity is attributable to heterosis effects on maternal characters. It is therefore particularly desirable to utilize crossbred females in commercial beef production breeding herds. Combining Breed Characteristics Additive genetic differences between