A comparison of reproductive and growth traits of horned and polled cattle in three synthetic beef lines

Abstract

Goonewardene, L. A., Pang, H., Berg, R. T. and Price, M. A. 1999. A comparison of reproductive and growth traits of horned and polled cattle in three synthetic beef lines. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 79: 123-127. The data for the study were obtained over an 11-yr period and the number of observations varied from 2663 to 4263 depending on the trait that was studied. The objective was to compare the reproduction and growth traits of genetically horned and polled cattle in three synthetic lines of beef cattle. No differences (P > 0.05) were observed between horned and polled cattle in all lines for pregnancy, calving and weaning rates, calf birth and weaning weights, calf preweaning average daily gains, dystocia score, cow weights and cow condition scores at calf birth and calf weaning. We advocate the use of polled cattle for breeding, which is a welfare friendly alternative and circumvents the need for dehorning.

A study of growth and carcass traits in dehorned and polled composite bulls

“…The DS had higher (P < 0.01) weaning weights and preweaning gains compared with BS1 and BS2 due to the influence of the dairy genetics in the composite. The breed group differences recognized in this study are similar to previous reports by Pang et al (1998) and Goonewardene et al (1999). Marbling was lower (P < 0.01) in BS2 compared with BS1 and DS, while BS1 had a higher (P < 0.01) REA and cutability compared with BS2 and DS.…”

“…The phenotypic similarities, however, in traits associated with reproduction, fitness, growth and carcass need to be established between horned and polled cattle before breeding for polledness can be recommended. In earlier studies we showed that horned and polled cattle were similar for growth and reproductive traits (Stookey and Goonewardene 1996;Goonewardene et al 1999), but little information is available on carcass traits. The objective of this study was to compare the growth and carcass traits of genetically horned and polled beef bulls from three composite (synthetic) breed groups.…”

“…As such, the beef feedlot-slaughter cattle industry appears to be most affected by the presence of horns. The removal of horns from young feeder cattle has been shown to be stressful and reduce growth rates (Goonewardene and Hand 1991;Cooper et al 1995). However, a perception exists in the beef industry that polled cattle are somewhat inferior to horned.…”

“…The three breed groups studied were: Beef Synthetic 1 (BS1), Beef Synthetic 2 (BS2) and Dairy Synthetic (DS). The breed composition of the synthetic breed groups and the management practices employed were described in earlier reports (Pang et al 1998;Goonewardene et al 1999). Briefly, the BS1 is composed of 33% each of Angus and Charolais, 20% Galloway, with the remainder being comprised of other beef breeds, while the BS2 is made up of approximately 60% Hereford and 40% other beef breeds.…”

“…Slaughter readiness was based on body weight and the level of finish, and the age at slaughter was 402 ± 40 d. Bulls judged ready for slaughter were shipped to a federal slaughter plant in batches of approximately 20 at 7-10 d intervals. Management details for the Kinsella cattle were reported in earlier studies (Pang et al 1998;Goonewardene et al 1999).…”