Register      Login
Animal Production Science Animal Production Science Society
Food, fibre and pharmaceuticals from animals
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effects of various proportions of wheat, bran or pollard in sorghum grain fattening diets on liveweight gain, feed efficiency and carcase composition of Hereford and Hereford × Santa Gertrudis cattle

RJW Gartner

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 18(93) 469 - 476
Published: 1978

Abstract

A 3 x 2 x 2 factorial design was used to examine the wheat by-products pollard and bran as a replacement in all-sorghum grain feedlot diets. The by-products replaced either 10, 30 or 50 per cent of the sorghum. Fourteen groups each of five Hereford steers of a mean initial shrunk liveweight of 251.5 ¦ S.E. 0.16 kg and seven groups each of five Santa Gertrudis x Hereford cross bullocks of 391.7 ¦ 0.16 kg were used. They were slaughtered at a mean final shrunk liveweight of 407.0 ¦ 3.54 and 534.5 ¦ 5.04 kg respectively. Production results from cattle receiving 50 per cent by-products were significantly inferior to lower levels of by-product. There were no significant differences between 10 and 30 per cent by-product. Cattle receiving pollard performed significantly better than those receiving bran. The growth rate of the Hereford steers of 1.24 kg day-1 was inferior (P < 0.01 ) to that of 1.41 for the Santa Gertrudis x Hereford bullocks, but the estimated gain in carcase weight of 0.75 kg day-1 was the same. The feed conversion ratio per unit of carcase weight gain favoured the Hereford steers (9.91 vs. 11.95; P < 0.01), but the feed conversion ratio per unit of liveweight gain was not significantly different (6.29 vs. 6.06). The total body fat figures were comparable for steers and bullocks -(mean 20.4 per cent). Both the percentage total yield of saleable meat and the percentage yield from the hindquarter were significantly greater (P < 0.01) in the Santa Gertrudis x Hereford cross bullocks (71.4 vs. 69.5 and 36.8 vs. 35.5 respectively).

https://doi.org/10.1071/EA9780469

© CSIRO 1978

Committee on Publication Ethics


Export Citation Get Permission