Maternal Performance of Brangus and Hereford x Brahman F1 Cows with Intensive Grazing Management of Two Forage Types1, 2

https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)32054-4Get rights and content

Abstract

A feeder-calf production system was evaluated on Coastal Plain soils in southwestern Arkansas. Two beef cow types [Brangus (BG) vs Brahman × Hereford F, (HBR)] were studied on two forage types [Tifton 44 hybrid bermudagrass (T44HB) vs common bermudagrass-dallisgrass (CBD)]. Two 9.6-ha pastures of each forage type were used with 30 cows (15 of each breed) on each pasture. An intensive rotational grazing system was used in which each pasture was subdivided into three 3.2-ha paddocks, and cows were rotated weekly from mid-April through mid-October. Simmentalsired calves were born in February-March and weaned in mid-October for yr 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991. Birth weight (BIW) and 205-d weaning weights (WW) of calves were analyzed using a split-plot 2×2×2 factorial design. No two- or threeway interactions were significant (P>.05). Mean BIW for calves from cows on T44HB and CBD were 35.6 kg and 35.8 kg P>.05), respectively. Mean WW was higher for calves from cows on CBD than for calves from cows on T44HB (240.3 vs 235.1 kg; P<.10). Calves with BG dams had heavier BIW than calves with HBR dams (36.9 vs 34.6 kg; (P<.05); however, calves with HBR dams had heavier WW (241.9 vs 233.6 kg; P<.05). An efficiency ratio (ER) was calculated for each group as (total 205-d weight per group)/(total weight at weaning of cows exposed to breeding per group) × 100. There was no difference in ER due to forage type, but HBR cows had a higher ER than BG cows as a group (45.6 vs 37.6%; P<.05).

Literature Cited (34)

  • Beef Improvement Federation

    Guidelines for Uniform Beef Improvement Programs

    (1986)
  • BrownA.H. et al.

    Preweaning production of two-breed-cross cows under an intensive grazing system in a temperature climate

    J. Prod. Agric

    (1989)
  • BrownA.H. et al.

    Selection and management of beef heifer replacements

    (1985)
  • ByingtonE.D. et al.
  • CartwrightT.C. et al.

    Effect of nursing habits on calf weights

    J. Anim. Sci

    (1961)
  • CundiffL.V.

    Experimental results on crossbreeding cattle for beef production

    J. Anim. Sci

    (1970)
  • DickersonG.

    Experimental approaches in utilizing breed resources

    Anim. Breed. Abstr

    (1969)
  • GainesJ.A. et al.

    Heterosis from crosses among British breeds of cattle: Straightbred versus crossbred cows

    J. Anim. Sci

    (1978)
  • GreenR.D. et al.

    Life-cycle biological efficiency of Bos Indicus x Bos Taurus and Bos Brangus crossbred cow-calf production to weaning

    J. Anim. Sci

    (1991)
  • GregoryK.E. et al.

    Crossbreeding in beef cattle: Evaluation of systems

    J. Anim. Sci

    (1980)
  • GregoryK.E. et al.

    Heterosis and breed maternal and transmitted effects in beef cattle. I. Preweaning traits

    J. Anim. Sci

    (1978)
  • HerdD.B. et al.

    Body condition, nutrition and reproduction of beef cows

    (1986)
  • HunterR.A. et al.

    Utilization of low-quality roughage by Bos taurus and Bos indicus cattle. 1. Rumen digestion

    Br. J. Nutr

    (1985)
  • HunterR.A. et al.

    Utilization of low-quality roughage by Bos taurus and Bos indicus cattle. 2. The effects of rumen-degradable nitrogen and sulphur on voluntary food intake and rumen characteristics

    Br. J. Nutr

    (1985)
  • HunterR.A. et al.

    Digestion of mature Pangola Grass (Digitaria decumbens) by Bos taurus and Bos indicus cattle

    Aust. J. Agric. Res

    (1986)
  • KogerM.

    Effective crossbreeding systems utilizing Zebu cattle

    J. Anim. Sci

    (1980)
  • McCarterM.N. et al.

    Comparison of crossbred cows containing various proportions of Brahman in spring and fall calving systems: I. Productivity as two-year-olds

    J. Anim. Sci

    (1990)
  • Cited by (0)

    1

    Published with the approval of the Director, Univ. Arkansas, Agric. Exp. Sta.

    2

    Mention of a trademark or proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the product by the Univ. Arkansas Agric. Exp. Sta./USDA and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that may also be suitable.

    3

    Southwest Res. and Ext. Ctr., Hope, AR.

    4

    USDA/ARS, South Central Family Farm Res. Ctr., Booneville, AR.

    5

    To whom correspondence should be addressed.

    View full text