Beef Friesian Crossbreed With a Limousin

Use of crossbreeding with beef bulls in dairy herds: Issue on historic period, body weight, price, and marketplace value of calves sold at livestock auctions ^{ane , two}

R. Dal Zotto,

*Department of Animal Science, University of Padova, Viale dell'Università xvi, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy

Search for other works by this writer on:

1000. Penasa,

*Department of Animal Science, Academy of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italian republic

Search for other works by this author on:

G. De Marchi,

*Department of Creature Science, University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy

Search for other works by this author on:

M. Cassandro,

*Department of Creature Science, University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy

Search for other works by this author on:

Northward. López-Villalobos,

†Institute of Veterinary, Fauna and Biomedical Sciences, Massey Academy, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North, New Zealand

Search for other works by this writer on:

One thousand. Bittante

*Department of Beast Science, Academy of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy

Search for other works past this author on:

ane

The authors thank the Kovieh Cooperative of Bolzano (Italy) for providing the information used in this report and the Trento province for funding the research. The useful comments and suggestions provided by the associate editor and 2 anonymous reviewers are gratefully best-selling.

2

Dedicated to our friend and author Riccardo Dal Zotto, an inspiring researcher who passed abroad on February 11, 2009.

Author Notes

Received:

06 November 2008

Published:

01 September 2009

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the event of different breeds and breed crosses on age (Ac, d), BW (kg), price (PR, $/kg), and market value (MV, $/calf) of purebred and crossbred calves sold for veal and beef production. The Kovieh wholesale cattle organization (Bolzano, Italia) grouped calves from several dairy herds located in the Trentino-Südtirol region in Italy and sold them by public auctions. Data on AC, BW, PR, and MV from 96,458 calves were recorded from Jan 2003 to December 2007 and consisted of four pure breeds [ii dairy, Brown Swiss (BS) and Holstein-Friesian (HF); and 2 dual-purpose, Simmental (SI) and Tall Grey (AG)], and 8 crossbreds by crosses of Limousin (LI) and Belgian Blue (BB) with the 4 dam breeds. To the lowest degree squares means for AC, BW, PR, and MV were calculated for breeds and breed crosses with a model that included fixed effects of herd of birth, historic period (except for Air-conditioning), sexual practice, and breed of the calf, year and flavour of sale, and interactions between the main furnishings. The coefficients of determination of the models were 0.41, 0.51, 0.84, and 0.82 for Air-conditioning, BW, PR, and MV, respectively. Sex, historic period, and brood were the most relevant sources of variation for BW (P < 0.001), whereas brood and sex were the most of import sources of variation for Air conditioning, PR, and MV (P < 0.001). As well, PR and MV were significantly influenced (P < 0.01) by all the effects included in the model, except for season × age interaction in the case of MV. Market value of male was greater (P < 0.001) than that of female calves, with the exception of BS (−$28.76/calf) and HF (−$twenty.70/calf) purebred males. Dual-purpose purebred calves presented greater (P < 0.001) PR and MV than dairy purebreds (MV of $426.97/calf and $307.96/dogie for SI and AG, and $256.24/calf and $275.65/calf for BS and HF, respectively). Calves from SI and AG dams had greater (P < 0.001) BW, PR, and MV than calves from BS and HF dams. Calves from SI cows had greater (P < 0.001) BW, PR, and MV than calves from AG cows. Crossbreeding with beef bulls increased (P < 0.001) BW, PR, and MV of calves from dairy and dual-purpose dams. Crossbreeding with BB bulls increased PR (+$2.58 ± 0.04/kg; P < 0.001) and MV (+$190.84 ± 3.62/calf; P < 0.001) of calves much more than than LI. The use of beef bull semen on dairy herds resulted in an economic revenue from selling crossbred calves.

INTRODUCTION

One reason for crossbreeding is to combine favorable attributes of 2 or more than breeds that are genetically different from each other just have complementary qualities (Cartwright, 1970). A mutual practise past farmers in the Alps is the utilise of beef bulls for mating dairy cows not used to breed replacements for the herd (25 to 30% of cows). This practice has been decreasing in the more than specialized herds because of fertility (Dal Zotto et al., 2007) and longevity (Boettcher, 2005) issues, merely in the near future it will be increased by the utilise of sexed semen (Hohenboken, 1999; Cerchiaro et al., 2007).

Crossbreeding between dairy and beef cattle breeds has been investigated by several authors in the past (Cundiff, 1970; Nelson et al., 1982), and more than recently, in that location has been a major research on this subject in the U.s.a. (Cundiff et al., 2001). In a recent study, Wolfová et al. (2007) confirmed that carcasses from beef × dairy crosses were much more valuable than carcasses from purebred dairy animals. Moreover, crossbreds showed better eating characteristics of the meat (Davies et al., 1992) and greater dressing percentage (Güngör et al., 2003) than purebreds.

In the Trentino-Südtirol region (northeast Italian republic), the majority of purebred and crossbred calves from dairy herds are sold at near 3 wk of age by a wholesale cattle arrangement that carries out public auctions (virtually 500 calves/wk). Purebred calves from dairy breeds [mainly Dark-brown Swiss (BS) and Holstein-Friesian (HF)] are destined to veal production (Cozzi, 2007). These animals are fed a milk replacer and a modest amount of roughage and are slaughtered at 5 to vi mo of age. On the contrary, the majority of the purebred dual-purpose [mainly Simmental (SI) and Alpine Grey (AG)] and crossbred calves are destined to beef production every bit immature intact bulls and heifers using high concentrate diets.

The objective of this study was to compare the effect of unlike breeds and brood crosses on historic period at auction (Ac, d), BW (kg), price (PR, $/kg), and market value (MV, $/dogie) of purebred and crossbred calves sold for veal and beefiness product.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Animal Care and Employ Committee approval was not obtained for this study because the information were from an existing database. The analyzed records were registered by the Kovieh Cooperative during public livestock auctions in Bolzano (Italian republic) from January 2003 to December 2007. The authors did not take directly command over the care of the animals included in this written report.

Data

Information were provided by Kovieh, a wholesale cattle organization located in Bolzano province (Italian republic) shut to the Austrian border. Information available was AC (d), BW (kg), PR ($/kg), and MV ($/calf) from 4 pure breeds, BS, HF, SI, and AG, and 8 crossbred types derived from mating the four dam breeds (BS, HF, SI, and AG) with two sire beefiness breeds, Limousin (LI) and Belgian Blue (BB). According to the European Marriage legislation, every brute is provided with a passport since birth, and information on sire and dam is registered. Just calves with registered breeds of sire and dam, AC between 7 and 50 d, and BW between 29 and 126 kg accept been considered. After editing of the data set as above, 96,458 calves sold during 239 weekly auctions from January 2003 to December 2007 were analyzed.

Statistical Assay

An ANOVA was performed on AC, BW, PR, and MV with the GLM procedure (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) using the following linear model:

\[y_{ijklmno}\ =\ {\mu}\ +\ herd_{i}\ +\ year_{j}\ +\ season_{grand}\ +\ sex_{50}\ +\ age_{grand}\ +\ breed_{n}\ +\ (breed_{n}\ {\times}\ sex_{l})\ +\ (breed_{n}\ {\times}\ year_{j})\ +\ (breed_{n}\ {\times}\ season_{1000})\ +\ (breed_{n}\ {\times}\ age_{1000})\ +\ (sex_{l}\ {\times}\ year_{j})\ +\ (sex_{l}\ {\times}\ season_{k})\ +\ (sex_{l}\ {\times}\ age_{grand})\ +\ (year_{j}\ {\times}\ season_{k})\ +\ (year_{j}\ {\times}\ age_{one thousand})\ +\ (season_{m}\ {\times}\ age_{m})\ +\ e_{ijklmno},\]

where y_ijklmno is observation ijklmno for AC, BW, PR, or MV; μ is the overall mean; herd_i is the fixed effect of the ith herd of birth of the calf (i = 1 to 8,634); year_j is the fixed event of the jth year of auction (j = 2003 to 2007); flavor_k is the stock-still consequence of the kth flavour of auction (k = spring, summer, autumn, winter); sexual practice_l is the stock-still result of the lth sex of the calf (50 = female and intact male); age_m is the fixed effect of the mth class of age of dogie at sale (young: 7 to 15 d; intermediate: xvi to 31 d; and former: 32 to fifty d); breed_n is the fixed effect of the nth breed (n = BS, HF, SI, AG, LI×BS, LI×HF, LI×SI, LI×AG, BB×BS, BB×HF, BB×SI, BB×AG); and e_ijklmno is the random residual associated with ascertainment ijklmno. Also, commencement-order interactions between the primary effects were considered. Random residuals were causeless to be identically, independently, and ordinarily distributed with mean naught and variance, The consequence of age at auction was non included in the analysis of Air conditioning. A multiple comparison of means was performed for the primary upshot of brood, using Bonferroni's test (P < 0.05).

Contrast estimates (±SE) for AC, BW, PR, and MV within sire and dam breeds, and their interactions were obtained, and a 5% level was referred to for testing if estimates were significantly unlike.

RESULTS AND Discussion

The number of calves from unlike breeds and breed crosses sold at weekly auctions are displayed in Table 1. Purebred calves represented 62.9% of the total data fix and ranged from ten% (ix,610 animals) for AG to 27.1% (26,133 animals) for BS. The number of calves sired past beef bulls represented the remaining 37.1% and varied from 3.8% for AG to 18.1% for BS cows, reflecting the different use of crossbreeding past farmers of the dissimilar breeds of cows. The number of calves sired past LI bulls was always less than the number of calves sired by BB bulls. This is specially true in the case of SI dams, with 285 calves sired by LI and 7,990 by BB bulls.

Table 1.

Number of calves¹ of unlike breeds and breed crosses² sold at auctions

Sire breed	Dam brood
	BS	HF	SI	AG
BS	26,133
HF		ten,395
SI			14,516
AG				nine,610
LI	one,563	526	285	285
BB	15,929	5,845	7,990	iii,381

Sire breed	Dam brood
	BS	HF	SI	AG
BS	26,133
HF		ten,395
SI			xiv,516
AG				9,610
LI	1,563	526	285	285
BB	xv,929	5,845	7,990	3,381

¹100% = 96,458 calves.

²BS = Chocolate-brown Swiss; HF = Holstein-Friesian; SI = Simmental; AG = Alpine Greyness; LI = Limousin; BB = Belgian Blue.

Tabular array 1.

Number of calves^ane of different breeds and brood crossesⁱⁱ sold at auctions

Sire breed	Dam breed
	BS	HF	SI	AG
BS	26,133
HF		10,395
SI			14,516
AG				9,610
LI	i,563	526	285	285
BB	xv,929	five,845	seven,990	3,381

Sire breed	Dam breed
	BS	HF	SI	AG
BS	26,133
HF		10,395
SI			14,516
AG				nine,610
LI	ane,563	526	285	285
BB	fifteen,929	5,845	7,990	3,381

¹100% = 96,458 calves.

²BS = Brown Swiss; HF = Holstein-Friesian; SI = Simmental; AG = Tall Gray; LI = Limousin; BB = Belgian Blueish.

Results from the ANOVA are summarized in Tabular array ii. The coefficients of decision were 0.41, 0.51, 0.84, and 0.82 for Ac, BW, PR, and MV, respectively. All the chief effects included in the model significantly explained the variability of the iv traits (P < 0.001). The 2 genetic effects (brood and sex) were the most of import with the improver of age for BW. As well, the principal furnishings of year and season were relevant in explaining the variability for PR and MV. Due to the high number of data analyzed, the majority of the interactions were highly significant (P < 0.001). Among them, breed × sex was the most important for all the traits and is discussed.

Table 2.

Results from ANOVA for age at auction (Air-conditioning, d), BW (kg), price (PR, $/kg), and market value (MV, $/calf)

Effect	df	Trait
		Air-conditioning			BW			PR			MV
		F-value	P-value		F-value	P-value		F-value	P-value		F-value	P-value
Herd	8,633	6.43	<0.001		five.91	<0.001		i.88	<0.001		3.48	<0.001
Twelvemonth	iv	31.35	<0.001		16.19	<0.001		285.39	<0.001		216.95	<0.001
Season	3	13.68	<0.001		45.14	<0.001		210.62	<0.001		207.53	<0.001
Sex	ane	202.xi	<0.001		957.64	<0.001		one,496.47	<0.001		2,194.06	<0.001
Age	2	—	—		450.51	<0.001		124.31	<0.001		13.eleven	<0.001
Breed	11	66.14	<0.001		343.97	<0.001		vi,665.37	<0.001		five,509.82	<0.001
Breed × sexual practice	11	21.xviii	<0.001		13.45	<0.001		273.94	<0.001		263.96	<0.001
Breed × twelvemonth	44	i.63	0.005		2.79	<0.001		55.24	<0.001		53.96	<0.001
Breed × season	33	3.25	<0.001		three.28	<0.001		39.21	<0.001		16.63	<0.001
Breed × age	22	—	—		viii.26	<0.001		12.32	<0.001		7.39	<0.001
Sex × year	4	0.78	0.537		1.07	0.368		131.89	<0.001		86.76	<0.001
Sex × flavor	3	2.21	0.084		1.48	0.216		14.68	<0.001		8.08	<0.001
Sex × age	2	—	—		five.84	0.003		18.96	<0.001		17.87	<0.001
Year × flavor	12	nine.81	<0.001		6.65	<0.001		248.52	<0.001		156.54	<0.001
Year × age	8	—	—		3.74	<0.001		iii.24	0.001		iv.91	<0.001
Season × age	6	—	—		iv.17	<0.001		3.01	0.006		1.98	0.064
R2		0.41			0.51			0.84			0.82
RMSE1		6.87			7.21			one.14			91.83

Effect	df	Trait
		AC			BW			PR			MV
		F-value	P-value		F-value	P-value		F-value	P-value		F-value	P-value
Herd	eight,633	6.43	<0.001		v.91	<0.001		1.88	<0.001		three.48	<0.001
Year	4	31.35	<0.001		sixteen.19	<0.001		285.39	<0.001		216.95	<0.001
Season	3	xiii.68	<0.001		45.14	<0.001		210.62	<0.001		207.53	<0.001
Sexual practice	one	202.xi	<0.001		957.64	<0.001		i,496.47	<0.001		ii,194.06	<0.001
Historic period	2	—	—		450.51	<0.001		124.31	<0.001		13.11	<0.001
Breed	11	66.14	<0.001		343.97	<0.001		6,665.37	<0.001		5,509.82	<0.001
Brood × sex	11	21.xviii	<0.001		13.45	<0.001		273.94	<0.001		263.96	<0.001
Breed × year	44	ane.63	0.005		2.79	<0.001		55.24	<0.001		53.96	<0.001
Breed × season	33	3.25	<0.001		three.28	<0.001		39.21	<0.001		16.63	<0.001
Breed × age	22	—	—		8.26	<0.001		12.32	<0.001		7.39	<0.001
Sexual practice × year	4	0.78	0.537		one.07	0.368		131.89	<0.001		86.76	<0.001
Sexual activity × season	3	two.21	0.084		1.48	0.216		14.68	<0.001		8.08	<0.001
Sex × age	2	—	—		5.84	0.003		18.96	<0.001		17.87	<0.001
Year × season	12	9.81	<0.001		6.65	<0.001		248.52	<0.001		156.54	<0.001
Year × age	8	—	—		3.74	<0.001		three.24	0.001		4.91	<0.001
Season × age	6	—	—		iv.17	<0.001		3.01	0.006		one.98	0.064
R2		0.41			0.51			0.84			0.82
RMSE1		6.87			7.21			1.14			91.83

^oneRMSE = root mean square error.

Table 2.

Results from ANOVA for historic period at auction (AC, d), BW (kg), toll (PR, $/kg), and market value (MV, $/dogie)

Consequence	df	Trait
		AC			BW			PR			MV
		F-value	P-value		F-value	P-value		F-value	P-value		F-value	P-value
Herd	viii,633	half-dozen.43	<0.001		five.91	<0.001		1.88	<0.001		three.48	<0.001
Yr	4	31.35	<0.001		sixteen.19	<0.001		285.39	<0.001		216.95	<0.001
Season	3	xiii.68	<0.001		45.fourteen	<0.001		210.62	<0.001		207.53	<0.001
Sex	i	202.11	<0.001		957.64	<0.001		1,496.47	<0.001		2,194.06	<0.001
Age	2	—	—		450.51	<0.001		124.31	<0.001		13.11	<0.001
Breed	11	66.xiv	<0.001		343.97	<0.001		six,665.37	<0.001		5,509.82	<0.001
Breed × sex	11	21.eighteen	<0.001		13.45	<0.001		273.94	<0.001		263.96	<0.001
Brood × yr	44	one.63	0.005		two.79	<0.001		55.24	<0.001		53.96	<0.001
Breed × season	33	3.25	<0.001		3.28	<0.001		39.21	<0.001		16.63	<0.001
Breed × age	22	—	—		8.26	<0.001		12.32	<0.001		vii.39	<0.001
Sexual practice × year	4	0.78	0.537		1.07	0.368		131.89	<0.001		86.76	<0.001
Sexual practice × season	3	2.21	0.084		i.48	0.216		14.68	<0.001		8.08	<0.001
Sex × age	two	—	—		5.84	0.003		18.96	<0.001		17.87	<0.001
Year × season	12	9.81	<0.001		6.65	<0.001		248.52	<0.001		156.54	<0.001
Year × age	8	—	—		iii.74	<0.001		iii.24	0.001		iv.91	<0.001
Season × age	6	—	—		four.17	<0.001		three.01	0.006		1.98	0.064
Rtwo		0.41			0.51			0.84			0.82
RMSE1		half dozen.87			vii.21			ane.14			91.83

Consequence	df	Trait
		Ac			BW			PR			MV
		F-value	P-value		F-value	P-value		F-value	P-value		F-value	P-value
Herd	8,633	6.43	<0.001		v.91	<0.001		i.88	<0.001		iii.48	<0.001
Year	4	31.35	<0.001		16.19	<0.001		285.39	<0.001		216.95	<0.001
Season	3	thirteen.68	<0.001		45.xiv	<0.001		210.62	<0.001		207.53	<0.001
Sexual activity	ane	202.xi	<0.001		957.64	<0.001		1,496.47	<0.001		2,194.06	<0.001
Age	2	—	—		450.51	<0.001		124.31	<0.001		13.11	<0.001
Breed	xi	66.14	<0.001		343.97	<0.001		half dozen,665.37	<0.001		5,509.82	<0.001
Breed × sex activity	11	21.18	<0.001		thirteen.45	<0.001		273.94	<0.001		263.96	<0.001
Brood × twelvemonth	44	1.63	0.005		2.79	<0.001		55.24	<0.001		53.96	<0.001
Breed × flavor	33	3.25	<0.001		3.28	<0.001		39.21	<0.001		sixteen.63	<0.001
Brood × age	22	—	—		8.26	<0.001		12.32	<0.001		seven.39	<0.001
Sexual activity × year	4	0.78	0.537		1.07	0.368		131.89	<0.001		86.76	<0.001
Sex × flavour	3	2.21	0.084		1.48	0.216		14.68	<0.001		viii.08	<0.001
Sexual practice × age	ii	—	—		5.84	0.003		eighteen.96	<0.001		17.87	<0.001
Year × flavor	12	9.81	<0.001		six.65	<0.001		248.52	<0.001		156.54	<0.001
Twelvemonth × age	viii	—	—		3.74	<0.001		iii.24	0.001		iv.91	<0.001
Flavor × age	6	—	—		4.17	<0.001		iii.01	0.006		ane.98	0.064
Rtwo		0.41			0.51			0.84			0.82
RMSEi		6.87			vii.21			1.fourteen			91.83

¹RMSE = root mean foursquare error.

Age of calves at auction varied, on boilerplate, from 23 d for BB×BS and LI×BS to 26 d for AG calves (Figure 1); BW ranged from 61 kg for HF to 69 kg for BB×BS and BB×SI (Figure 2); PR from $iii.93/kg for BS to $9.51/kg for BB×SI (Figure 3); and MV from $256.24/calf for BS to $662.39/calf for BB×SI (Figure four). Dual-purpose purebred calves showed greater (P < 0.05) PR and MV than dairy purebreds. Market values were $256.24/calf and $275.65/dogie for BS and HF, and $426.97/dogie and $307.96/dogie for SI and AG, respectively. The greater MV for SI compared with the other pure calves (Figure 4) was not merely due to the more favorable PR but besides to the greater (P < 0.05) BW reached by SI animals. Also, SI calves exceeded the average MV of BS and HF past $161.02/calf. This advantage can counterbalance a decreased milk product of 358 kg in terms of income ($0.45/kg was the price of milk in Italy during the period of the written report). In terms of income over feed costs, the amount of milk counterbalanced would probably be more than than double taking into account the reduction in feed requirements, particularly in terms of concentrate consumption. In the case of the AG breed, the superiority of its calves for MV is much less pronounced than that of the SI breed. However, for a correct comparison with specialized dairy breeds from the technical and economical point of view, information technology is necessary to consider that the AG cows are much lighter than those of the other 3 breeds; this leads to more cows, calves, and lactations per hectare of cultivated land (Bittante et al., 2005). The greater fertility and longevity of the dual-purpose and BS breeds with respect to HF is responsible for a reduced replacement rate with the opportunity to mate a substantial number of cows with beef bulls. Thus, crossbreeding with beef bulls tin further counterbalance a significant part of the greater corporeality of milk produced by HF cows.

Figure i.

Least squares ways (with SE) of age at sale (d) of calves of dissimilar breeds and breed crosses (BS = Brown Swiss; HF = Holstein-Friesian; SI = Simmental; AG = Alpine Grayness). ^a–gTo the lowest degree squares means with dissimilar letters differ (P < 0.05).

Figure 1.

Least squares ways (with SE) of age at auction (d) of calves of different breeds and breed crosses (BS = Brown Swiss; HF = Holstein-Friesian; SI = Simmental; AG = Alpine Grey). ^a–mLeast squares means with different letters differ (P < 0.05).

Effigy ii.

Least squares means (with SE) of BW (kg) of calves of unlike breeds and breed crosses (BS = Brown Swiss; HF = Holstein-Friesian; SI = Simmental; AG = Alpine Gray). ^a–fLeast squares ways with unlike letters differ (P < 0.05).

Effigy 2.

Least squares means (with SE) of BW (kg) of calves of dissimilar breeds and breed crosses (BS = Brown Swiss; HF = Holstein-Friesian; SI = Simmental; AG = Alpine Grey). ^a–fLeast squares means with unlike letters differ (P < 0.05).

Figure 3.

Least squares means (with SE) of price ($/kg) of calves of unlike breeds and breed crosses (BS = Chocolate-brown Swiss; HF = Holstein-Friesian; SI = Simmental; AG = Alpine Grey). ^a–jLeast squares ways with different messages differ (P < 0.05).

Figure 3.

Least squares ways (with SE) of price ($/kg) of calves of different breeds and breed crosses (BS = Brownish Swiss; HF = Holstein-Friesian; SI = Simmental; AG = Tall Gray). ^a–jLeast squares means with different letters differ (P < 0.05).

Effigy four.

Least squares means (with SE) of market value ($/calf) of calves of different breeds and breed crosses (BS = Brown Swiss; HF = Holstein-Friesian; SI = Simmental; AG = Alpine Grey). ^a–jTo the lowest degree squares ways with different letters differ (P < 0.05).

Figure 4.

Least squares means (with SE) of market value ($/calf) of calves of different breeds and breed crosses (BS = Brown Swiss; HF = Holstein-Friesian; SI = Simmental; AG = Alpine Grey). ^a–jLeast squares means with different letters differ (P < 0.05).

Crossbred calves had a younger AC (−i.45 ± 0.12 d; P < 0.001) and greater BW (+3.96 ± 0.16 kg; P < 0.001), PR (+$ii.65 ± 0.03/kg; P < 0.001), and MV (+$192.98 ± 2.04/calf; P < 0.001) than purebreds, and among crossbred combinations those from BB were significantly superior than those from LI sires for Air-conditioning (−0.65 ± 0.21 d; P < 0.01), BW (+2.66 ± 0.28 kg; P < 0.001), PR (+$2.58 ± 0.04/kg; P < 0.001), and MV (+$190.84 ± three.62/calf; P < 0.001; Tabular array 3). In a contempo study, Barham and Troxel (2007) reported that the breed event was highly significant in explaining the selling price of feeder cattle sold at Arkansas auctions, and a departure of $33.28 per 45.45 kg was found betwixt the highest (Hereford × Charolais) and the lowest (Longhorn) toll.

Table 3.

Dissimilarity estimates (est.) ± SE within sire and dam breeds and their interactions for age at auction (AC, d), BW (kg), toll (PR, $/kg), and market place value (MV, $/calf)

Contrast	Trait, est. ± SE
	Air-conditioning	BW	PR	MV
Sire breeds
[1] PBone vs. (LI+BB)2	ane.45 ± 0.12***	−3.96 ± 0.sixteen***	−2.65 ± 0.03***	−192.98 ± 2.04***
[2] LI vs. BB3	0.65 ± 0.21**	−ii.66 ± 0.28***	−2.58 ± 0.04***	−190.84 ± 3.62***
Dam breeds
[3] (BS+HF) vs. (SI+AG)iv	−0.53 ± 0.xviii**	−1.09 ± 0.23***	−1.16 ± 0.04***	−80.89 ± 2.88***
[four] BS vs. HFv	−0.42 ± 0.18*	one.00 ± 0.21***	−0.02 ± 0.03	four.91 ± 2.68
[five] SI vs. AGsix	−0.01 ± 0.29	two.09 ± 0.38***	0.72 ± 0.06***	59.40 ± four.fourscore***
Sire × dam breeds
[i] × [3]	−0.41 ± 0.12***	−1.xix ± 0.16***	−0.23 ± 0.03***	−fifteen.47 ± 2.02***
[one] × [4]	0.92 ± 0.xiv***	0.31 ± 0.17	−0.27 ± 0.03***	−18.24 ± 2.17***
[ane] × [5]	−0.35 ± 0.nineteen	1.95 ± 0.27***	0.54 ± 0.04***	44.70 ± 3.38***
[2] × [three]	−0.09 ± 0.21	−0.09 ± 0.28	0.07 ± 0.04	10.77 ± 3.59**
[2] × [iv]	−0.23 ± 0.21	−0.54 ± 0.27*	−0.12 ± 0.04**	−14.66 ± iii.38***
[2] × [5]	i.01 ± 0.35**	−0.57 ± 0.49	−0.01 ± 0.08	−3.63 ± half-dozen.28

Dissimilarity	Trait, est. ± SE
	AC	BW	PR	MV
Sire breeds
[1] Leadi vs. (LI+BB)2	i.45 ± 0.12***	−iii.96 ± 0.16***	−2.65 ± 0.03***	−192.98 ± two.04***
[2] LI vs. BB3	0.65 ± 0.21**	−2.66 ± 0.28***	−2.58 ± 0.04***	−190.84 ± 3.62***
Dam breeds
[iii] (BS+HF) vs. (SI+AG)4	−0.53 ± 0.18**	−1.09 ± 0.23***	−i.16 ± 0.04***	−fourscore.89 ± two.88***
[4] BS vs. HF5	−0.42 ± 0.eighteen*	1.00 ± 0.21***	−0.02 ± 0.03	four.91 ± 2.68
[5] SI vs. AG6	−0.01 ± 0.29	2.09 ± 0.38***	0.72 ± 0.06***	59.40 ± 4.80***
Sire × dam breeds
[1] × [three]	−0.41 ± 0.12***	−1.19 ± 0.16***	−0.23 ± 0.03***	−15.47 ± 2.02***
[one] × [4]	0.92 ± 0.14***	0.31 ± 0.17	−0.27 ± 0.03***	−18.24 ± ii.17***
[1] × [v]	−0.35 ± 0.19	1.95 ± 0.27***	0.54 ± 0.04***	44.70 ± three.38***
[two] × [3]	−0.09 ± 0.21	−0.09 ± 0.28	0.07 ± 0.04	10.77 ± 3.59**
[2] × [4]	−0.23 ± 0.21	−0.54 ± 0.27*	−0.12 ± 0.04**	−14.66 ± 3.38***
[2] × [five]	1.01 ± 0.35**	−0.57 ± 0.49	−0.01 ± 0.08	−3.63 ± vi.28

¹PB = purebred calves.

ⁱⁱPB vs. (LI+BB) = contrast between purebred and crossbred calves. LI = Limousin; BB = Belgian Blue.

³LI vs. BB = contrast between crossbred calves from the 2 beef breeds.

⁴(BS+HF) vs. (SI+AG) = contrast between calves from dairy and dual-purpose dams. BS = Brown Swiss; HF = Holstein-Friesian; SI = Simmental; AG = Alpine Greyness.

⁵BS vs. HF = contrast between calves from dairy dams.

⁶SI vs. AG = dissimilarity between calves from dual-purpose dams.

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

Tabular array 3.

Contrast estimates (est.) ± SE inside sire and dam breeds and their interactions for age at auction (Ac, d), BW (kg), price (PR, $/kg), and marketplace value (MV, $/calf)

Contrast	Trait, est. ± SE
	AC	BW	PR	MV
Sire breeds
[1] PB1 vs. (LI+BB)2	1.45 ± 0.12***	−iii.96 ± 0.xvi***	−2.65 ± 0.03***	−192.98 ± two.04***
[2] LI vs. BBthree	0.65 ± 0.21**	−two.66 ± 0.28***	−2.58 ± 0.04***	−190.84 ± 3.62***
Dam breeds
[three] (BS+HF) vs. (SI+AG)4	−0.53 ± 0.18**	−1.09 ± 0.23***	−1.16 ± 0.04***	−80.89 ± 2.88***
[iv] BS vs. HF5	−0.42 ± 0.18*	1.00 ± 0.21***	−0.02 ± 0.03	4.91 ± 2.68
[5] SI vs. AG6	−0.01 ± 0.29	two.09 ± 0.38***	0.72 ± 0.06***	59.40 ± iv.lxxx***
Sire × dam breeds
[1] × [3]	−0.41 ± 0.12***	−i.19 ± 0.16***	−0.23 ± 0.03***	−15.47 ± two.02***
[1] × [4]	0.92 ± 0.14***	0.31 ± 0.17	−0.27 ± 0.03***	−xviii.24 ± 2.17***
[1] × [5]	−0.35 ± 0.nineteen	1.95 ± 0.27***	0.54 ± 0.04***	44.seventy ± 3.38***
[2] × [3]	−0.09 ± 0.21	−0.09 ± 0.28	0.07 ± 0.04	10.77 ± 3.59**
[2] × [4]	−0.23 ± 0.21	−0.54 ± 0.27*	−0.12 ± 0.04**	−14.66 ± 3.38***
[2] × [5]	1.01 ± 0.35**	−0.57 ± 0.49	−0.01 ± 0.08	−3.63 ± 6.28

Contrast	Trait, est. ± SE
	Air-conditioning	BW	PR	MV
Sire breeds
[i] PBane vs. (LI+BB)2	one.45 ± 0.12***	−3.96 ± 0.sixteen***	−2.65 ± 0.03***	−192.98 ± two.04***
[ii] LI vs. BBiii	0.65 ± 0.21**	−2.66 ± 0.28***	−2.58 ± 0.04***	−190.84 ± 3.62***
Dam breeds
[3] (BS+HF) vs. (SI+AG)4	−0.53 ± 0.18**	−i.09 ± 0.23***	−1.sixteen ± 0.04***	−80.89 ± 2.88***
[4] BS vs. HF5	−0.42 ± 0.18*	1.00 ± 0.21***	−0.02 ± 0.03	4.91 ± 2.68
[5] SI vs. AGhalf dozen	−0.01 ± 0.29	2.09 ± 0.38***	0.72 ± 0.06***	59.40 ± 4.80***
Sire × dam breeds
[i] × [3]	−0.41 ± 0.12***	−ane.xix ± 0.16***	−0.23 ± 0.03***	−15.47 ± 2.02***
[one] × [4]	0.92 ± 0.xiv***	0.31 ± 0.17	−0.27 ± 0.03***	−18.24 ± 2.17***
[one] × [5]	−0.35 ± 0.xix	one.95 ± 0.27***	0.54 ± 0.04***	44.seventy ± three.38***
[2] × [three]	−0.09 ± 0.21	−0.09 ± 0.28	0.07 ± 0.04	10.77 ± 3.59**
[2] × [four]	−0.23 ± 0.21	−0.54 ± 0.27*	−0.12 ± 0.04**	−14.66 ± three.38***
[2] × [5]	1.01 ± 0.35**	−0.57 ± 0.49	−0.01 ± 0.08	−3.63 ± 6.28

^onePb = purebred calves.

^twoAtomic number 82 vs. (LI+BB) = dissimilarity between purebred and crossbred calves. LI = Limousin; BB = Belgian Blue.

³LI vs. BB = dissimilarity between crossbred calves from the 2 beef breeds.

⁴(BS+HF) vs. (SI+AG) = contrast betwixt calves from dairy and dual-purpose dams. BS = Dark-brown Swiss; HF = Holstein-Friesian; SI = Simmental; AG = Alpine Grayness.

⁵BS vs. HF = contrast betwixt calves from dairy dams.

⁶SI vs. AG = dissimilarity between calves from dual-purpose dams.

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

The impact of the 2 beef breeds on MV of crossbred calves is displayed in Effigy v. The use of LI semen on BS and AG dams increased the value of crossbreds by nearly $126. For LI×SI the value was slightly greater (+$30.18) than SI purebreds. Equally reported by Comerford et al. (1987) the LI breed tended to accept calves with less calving difficulty and greater survival rates than other breeds combinations. Recently, the use of BB semen has exceeded that of LI because the double muscling of the breed is responsible for yielding well-conformed carcasses with reduced fat content (Hanset et al., 1987; Uytterhaegen et al., 1994). On average, the value of BB-sired calves was $190.84 greater than LI-sired calves and $288.40 greater than purebred calves. When compared with the purebred counterparts, the use of BB bulls on BS and AG cows enhanced the value of crossbreds $324.06 and $321.20, respectively, and $272.92 when used on HF dams. Too, BB×SI crossbreds largely exceeded SI purebred calves (+$235.42, i.east., much more LI×SI calves). In full general, with both the beef breeds the beneficial effect of crossbreeding from the economical point of view was maximum with BS and AG and minimum with the SI cows. It is possible that crossbreeding the dairy breeds, specially with BB, increased the proportion of calves weaned and fattened for beefiness production vs. veal, whereas this cannot be done in the instance of SI because the purebred and crossbred calves are used for beefiness and non for veal.

Figure 5.

Increase of market value ($/calf) of crossbred with respect to purebred calves (BS = Brown Swiss; HF = Holstein-Friesian; SI = Simmental; AG = Tall Grey).

Figure five.

Increase of market value ($/calf) of crossbred with respect to purebred calves (BS = Brown Swiss; HF = Holstein-Friesian; SI = Simmental; AG = Alpine Gray).

Calves from the 2 dual-purpose dam breeds (SI and AG) performed better than those from the two specialized dairy dam breeds (BS and HF) for BW (+1.09 ± 0.23 kg; P < 0.001), PR (+$1.16 ± 0.04/kg; P < 0.001), and MV (+$80.89 ± 2.88/dogie; P < 0.001; Table three). Brown Swiss and HF produced calves with comparable PR and MV (P > 0.05). Nevertheless, calves from BS had less Ac (−0.42 ± 0.18 d; P < 0.05) and greater BW (+1.00 ± 0.21 kg; P < 0.001) than those from HF dams. Simmental breed produced calves heavier (+2.09 ± 0.38 kg; P < 0.001) and with greater PR (+$0.72 ± 0.06/kg; P < 0.001) and MV (+$59.xl ± 4.80/calf; P < 0.001) than those from AG dams. In general, these results confirmed that dual-purpose cows produced calves with ameliorate commercial values than specialized dairy cows because of heavier calves and particularly greater price achieved at sale (Bittante et al., 2005). Too, this increment in value depends on the fact that the majority of dual-purpose calves are weaned and used for beef production, whereas dairy calves are almost all used for veal product.

Interactions between the sire and dam breeds (Tabular array three) showed that crossbreeding with beefiness bulls reduced differences between calves from dairy and dual-purpose dams. Even if purebred BS calves presented greater AC and BW and less PR and MV than purebred HF (Figures ane to 4), crossbred calves from BS cows presented less Ac and greater PR and MV than those from HF. Whereas purebred SI calves are characterized past superior BW, PR, and MV than AG (Figures two to 4), in the case of crossbred calves the differences between the 2 dual-purpose dam breeds are less pronounced. The superiority of crossbred calves from dual-purpose respect to those from dairy dams was more pronounced for BB-sired than LI-sired calves in the case of MV. The superiority of crossbred calves from BS compared with HF dams was more pronounced for BB-sired than LI-sired calves for BW, PR, and MV. Finally, the brood of sire showed meaning interactions with the ii dual-purpose breeds only in the case of Ac.

The sex effect showed that male calves were younger at auction (−1.85 ± 0.xiii d; P < 0.001) and had greater BW (+4.49 ± 0.15 kg; P < 0.001), PR (+$0.89 ± 0.02/kg; P < 0.001), and MV (+$86.61 ± 1.85/calf; P < 0.001) than female calves. Figure 6 illustrates the interaction between sexual practice and brood of calves for MV. In the case of purebred calves from the 2 specialized dairy breeds, the average value of males was slightly less than females (−$28.76/calf and −$twenty.lxx/calf for BS and HF, respectively). This seemed to be due to a negligible sex effect for calves destined to veal product, because that animals are slaughtered at 5 to half dozen mo of age (i.e., earlier they reach the puberty). Moreover, it is possible that part of the purebred heifer calves was bought past dairy farmers for replacements and not for beef production. In all other cases, male exceeded female calves from $77.56 (LI × BS) to $141.58 (LI × SI). Although sex has a strong affect on MV of purebred and LI-sired calves, the superiority of males in BB-sired calves is not largely influenced by the breed of the dam. Barham and Troxel (2007) highlighted a pregnant influence of calf sex in determining the selling price, and a difference of $5.12 per 45.45 kg was institute between bulls and heifers. However, these differences were less than those reported in our written report for purebred dual-purpose and crossbred calves.

Effigy 6.

Average differences between the market value ($/calf) of male person and female calves of different breeds and breed crosses (BS = Brown Swiss; HF = Holstein-Friesian; SI = Simmental; AG = Tall Grey). Within each breed and brood cross, the market value of male calves differs significantly (P < 0.001) from zero.

Figure 6.

Average differences between the market place value ($/calf) of male and female calves of unlike breeds and brood crosses (BS = Brown Swiss; HF = Holstein-Friesian; SI = Simmental; AG = Alpine Grey). Within each breed and breed cross, the market value of male person calves differs significantly (P < 0.001) from zero.

In conclusion, purebred calves from dual-purpose breeds obtained greater PR and MV than purebred calves from dairy breeds. Thus, they contributed positively to the subcontract income. Holstein-Friesian showed greater PR and MV than BS calves. Simmental exhibited superior BW, PR, and MV than AG calves, only it should exist considered that cows of the latter breed are lighter than cows of the former. Crossbreeding with LI bulls increased BW, PR, and MV of calves from dairy and AG breeds, but had less impact on SI cows. Crossbreeding with BB bulls increased PR and MV of calves of dairy and dual-purpose breeds much more than than LI bulls. The greatest increase in MV was produced when BB semen was used on BS and AG cows and the to the lowest degree when used on SI cows. Market place value of male was greater than that of female calves with the exception of purebred dairy calves. Results highlighted that breed complementarity (Cartwright, 1970) occurred and the utilize of crossbreeding on cows not used to breed replacements in dairy herds can consequence in greater economic revenue from selling crossbred calves. In the more specialized dairy herds, the use of crossbreeding has been decreasing considering of fertility and longevity problems. However, this practice is expected to become more popular in the next years because in that location is an increasing involvement in the use of sexed semen among dairy producers. This perspective would atomic number 82 to more dairy cows available for mating with beefiness bulls.

LITERATURE CITED

Barham

,

B. 50.

&

Troxel

,

T. R.

2007

.

Factors affecting the selling cost of feeder cattle sold at Arkansas livestock auctions in 2005

.

J. Anim. Sci.

85

:

3434

–

3441

.

Bittante

,

Yard.

,

I.

Andrighetto

, and

M.

Ramanzin

2005

.

Tecniche di produzione animale.

sixth ed.

Liviana Ed.

,

Novara, Italy

.

Boettcher

,

P.

2005

.

Breeding for comeback of functional traits in dairy cattle

.

Ital. J. Anim. Sci.

4

(Suppl. iii):

seven

–

16

.

Cartwright

,

T. C.

1970

.

Selection criteria for beefiness cattle for the future

.

J. Anim. Sci.

30

:

706

–

711

.

Cerchiaro

,

I.

,

Cassandro

,

M.

,

Dal Zotto

,

R.

,

Carnier

,

P.

&

Gallo

,

L.

2007

.

A field report on fertility and purity of sex-sorted cattle sperm

.

J. Dairy Sci.

90

:

2538

–

2542

.

Comerford

,

J. W.

,

Bertrand

,

J. One thousand.

,

Benyshek

,

Fifty. Fifty.

&

Johnson

,

M. H.

1987

.

Reproductive rates, nascency weight, calving ease and 24-h calf survival in a four-breed diallel amid Simmental, Limousin, Polled Hereford and Brahman beefiness cattle

.

J. Anim. Sci.

64

:

65

–

76

.

Cozzi

,

One thousand.

2007

.

Present situation and futurity challenges of beef cattle product in Italy and the function of the research

.

Ital. J. Anim. Sci.

6

(Suppl. one):

389

–

396

.

Cundiff

,

L. V.

1970

.

Experimental results on crossbreeding cattle for beef production

.

J. Anim. Sci.

30

:

694

–

705

.

Cundiff

,

Fifty. V.

,

T. L.

Wheeler

,

S. D.

Shackelford

,

Chiliad.

Koohmaraie

,

R. M.

Thallman

,

Yard. E.

Gregory

, and

L. D.

Van Vleck

2001

.

Preliminary results from cycle VI of the cattle germplasm evaluation program at the Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Eye.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Identify/54380000/GPE/GPE20.PDF Accessed Jan. 14,

2009

.

Dal Zotto

,

R.

,

De Marchi

,

M.

,

Dalvit

,

C.

,

Cassandro

,

M.

,

Gallo

,

L.

,

Carnier

,

P.

&

Bittante

,

G.

2007

.

Heritabilities and genetic correlations of body status score and calving interval with yield, somatic prison cell score, and linear blazon traits in Dark-brown Swiss cattle

.

J. Dairy Sci.

90

:

5737

–

5743

.

Davies

,

M. H.

,

Grundy

,

H. F.

&

Page

,

S.

1992

.

Evaluation of Piemontese cross Friesian steers and heifers on silage-based diets

.

Anim. Prod.

54

:

500

. (Abstr.)

Güngör

,

Thousand.

,

Alçiçek

,

A.

&

Önenç

,

A.

2003

.

Feedlot performance and slaughter traits of Friesian, Piedmontese × Friesian and Limousin × Friesian young bulls nether intensive beef production system in Turkey

.

J. Appl. Anim. Res.

24

:

129

–

136

.

Hanset

,

R.

,

Michaux

,

C.

&

Stasse

,

A.

1987

.

Relationships between growth rate, carcass composition, feed intake, feed conversion ratio and income in four biological types of cattle

.

Genet. Sel. Evol.

19

:

225

–

248

.

Hohenboken

,

W. D.

1999

.

Applications of sexed semen in cattle production

.

Theriogenology

52

:

1421

–

1433

.

Nelson

,

L. A.

,

Beavers

,

K. D.

&

Stewart

,

T. S.

1982

.

Beef × beefiness and dairy × beef females mated to Angus and Charolais sires. 2. Calf growth, weaning charge per unit and moo-cow productivity

.

J. Anim. Sci.

54

:

1150

–

1159

.

Uytterhaegen

,

L.

,

Claeys

,

Due east.

,

Demeyer

,

D.

,

Lippens

,

M.

,

Fiems

,

L. O.

,

Boucqué

,

C. Y.

,

van de Voorde

,

Yard.

&

Bastiaens

,

A.

1994

.

Effects of double-muscling on carcass quality, beef tenderness and myofibrillar protein degradation in Belgian Blue White bulls

.

Meat Sci.

38

:

255

–

267

.

Wolfová

,

J.

,

Wolf

,

J.

,

Kvapilík

,

J.

&

Kica

,

J.

2007

.

Selection for profit in cattle: 2. Economic weights for dairy and beef sires in crossbreeding systems

.

J. Dairy Sci.

xc

:

2456

–

2467

.

Author notes

1

The authors give thanks the Kovieh Cooperative of Bolzano (Italy) for providing the information used in this study and the Trento province for funding the research. The useful comments and suggestions provided past the associate editor and ii anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged.

ii

Dedicated to our friend and writer Riccardo Dal Zotto, an inspiring researcher who passed away on February xi, 2009.

This is an Open Admission commodity distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original piece of work is properly cited. For commercial re-apply, delight contact journals.permissions@oup.com

taylorneloseling.blogspot.com

Source: https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/87/9/3053/4793340