Effects of genotype, sex and stocking rate on postweaning efficiency and value-adding potential at turnoff of weaners grazing improved pasture in the Douglas Daly region of the Northern Territory
T. J. Schatz A B , P. E. R. Ridley A , D. J. M. La Fontaine A and M. N. Hearnden AA Department of Primary Industries Fisheries and Mines, PO Box 3000, Darwin, NT 0801, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: tim.schatz@nt.gov.au
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 47(11) 1272-1276 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA06069
Submitted: 2 March 2006 Accepted: 20 March 2007 Published: 18 October 2007
Abstract
An experiment was undertaken to establish the effects of genotype, sex and stocking rate on postweaning growth and value-adding potential at turnoff of weaners grazing improved pasture in the Douglas Daly region of the Northern Territory, Australia. The growth of 27 steer and 27 heifer weaners of four genotypes was studied each year for 4 years (i.e. n = 216 animals per year). Animals from each group were run at one of three stocking rates. The cattle were weighed monthly and fat depth was measured ultrasonically at the end of the postweaning year. Genotype had no significant effect on weight gain but one-quarter Charolais × three-quarters Brahman and Droughtmaster animals were significantly (P < 0.0001) leaner than Brahman (purebred and commercial) cattle at the end of the postweaning year. Steers grew more (12%; P < 0.0001) and were leaner (2.6 mm less P8 fat depth; P < 0.0001) than heifers. Animals that grazed at lower stocking rates gained more weight (P < 0.0001) but were not significantly fatter than those at higher stocking rates. The way these factors can be used to produce leaner animals with more value-adding potential for South-East Asian feedlots is discussed.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded in part by Northern Territory Department of Primary Industries Fisheries and Mines, and Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) and was devised by Peter Ridley. We are grateful for the assistance of the manager (Peter O’Brien) and staff at Douglas Daly Research Farm.
Amer PR,
Kemp RA, Smith C
(1992) Genetic differences among the predominant beef cattle breeds in Canada. An analysis of published results. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72, 759–771.
AMRC
(1980) Heifer v. steer carcasses. Australian Meat Research Committee Annual Report 14, 94–95.
Barker DJ, May PJ
(1988) The efficiency of steers and heifers finished at the same fatness. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 17, 375.
Burrow HM,
Moore SS,
Johnston DJ,
Barendse W, Bindon BM
(2001) Quantitative and molecular genetic influences on properties of beef: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, 893–919.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Frisch JE, Vercoe JE
(1984) An analysis of growth of different cattle genotypes reared in different environments. Journal of Agricultural ScienceCambridge 103, 137–153.
Koch RM,
Dikeman ME,
Allen DM,
May M,
Crouse JD, Campion DR
(1976) Characterisation of biological types of cattle. III. Carcass composition, quality and palatability. Journal of Animal Science 43, 48–62.
Peacock FM,
Palmer AZ,
Carpenter JW, Koger M
(1979) Breed and heterosis effects on carcass characteristics of Angus, Brahman, Charolais and Crossbred steers. Journal of Animal Science 49, 391–395..
Rudder TH,
Seifert GW, Bean KG
(1975) Growth performance of Brahman and Charolais × Brahman cattle in a tropical environment. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 15, 156–158.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sandland RL, Jones RJ
(1975) The relation between animal gain and stocking rate in grazing trials: an examination of published theoretical models. The Journal of Agricultural Science 85(1), 123–128.
Ury HK
(1976) A comparison of four procedures for multiple comparisons among means (pair-wise contrasts) for arbitrary sample sizes. Technometrics 18, 89–97.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
