The Effect of Selected Factors on the Growth Ability of Charolais Cattle

Abstract

The aim of this work was to analyze the growth abilities of bull and heifer calves (n = 190) of the Charolais breed calved in one herd from 2006 to 2011. The evaluation was carried out during the period of calf raising, focusing to the eff ects of sex, parity and the mating method on live birth weight (BLW) and the live weight at 120 (LW120), 210 (LW210) and 365 (LW365) days of life, as well as the average daily weight gain reached by the age of 120 (G120), 210 (G210), and 365 (G365) days. Statistical analysis was carried out with the use of the SAS 9.3 program. The eff ect of sex on the live weight and average daily weight gain was statistically signifi cant on the level of P < 0.01 always in favour of the bull calves (BLW +3.05 kg, LW120 +29.35 kg, LW210 +36.98 kg, and LW365 +117.23 kg). The lowest live birth weight was detected in the calves of primiparous cows (BLW = 45.46 kg; P < 0.01). The higher parity, the higher live birth weight was determined, with maximum values in cows from the fourth calving. The trends were similar in live weight at 120, 210 and 365 days of age, when signifi cance level was P < 0.05. The parity eff ect on the average daily weight gain (G120, G210 a G365) was statistically insignifi cant (P > 0.05). The eff ect of embryo transfer (ET) and other commonly used reproduction methods (insemination and natural mating, AI/PP) was evaluated as well as. The calves born a er embryo transfer showed a signifi cantly (P < 0.01) higher the live birth weight as well as weight at diff erent ages (BLW +5.85 kg, LW120 +18.15 kg, LW210 +22.94 kg and LW365 +35.43 kg), and G120 only (+100 g×day −1 ; P < 0.05). These results pointed the suitability of using the biotechnological reproduction methods, especially in relation to the total weight of the reared and fattened animals.

Health and growth of Finnish beef calves and the relation to acute phase response

“…The long term model showed better growth for Charolais than for Hereford calves as described by Krupa et al (2005), who also showed different growth rates at different breeds at different ages. Bull calves grow faster and get bigger than heifer calves (Toušová et al, 2014), but in our study this held only for the Charolais breed. The parity of the dam showed no more effect on the growth rate in the long-term model, but the dam's BCS ≥3 after parturition was associated with better growth rate.…”

“…Our results show that calves from higher parity dams grew better during in the early life, but other studies detected associations between increased parity of the dam and growth of calves from birth to weaning (Krupa et al, 2005) or no effect at all (Toušová et al, 2014). Primiparous dams have poorer quality colostrum (Rocha et al, 2013), which may result in lower growth in early life if calves are more susceptible to diseases.…”

“…A good growth rate of beef calves is essential for an efficient beef production. Various factors contributing for the differences of growth among individuals have been revealed over the years, including gender (Krupa et al, 2005;Toušová et al, 2014) and breed (Lundborg et al, 2003;Krupa et al, 2005) to diseases . Also various management practices, e.g.…”

The Selected Factors Influenced Growth Ability to Weaning of Aberdeen Angus Cattle

“…Generally signifi cant diff erences were observed among years of 2012 and 2010, 2011 or 2013, respectively. The eff ect of year of calving was confi rmed as previously published by Dadi et al, 2002;Krupa et al, 2005 andToušová et al, 2014. Diff erences in particular years of calving could be explained by various climatic conditions during the year, which is connected with variable forage grazing quality. The quality of forage subsequently infl uence also the quality of bulk fodder fed in winter year-season (Klanic et al, 1993).…”

“…The weight of calves at weaning infl uences their realization and thus the herd economy. The growth of calves and their weaning weight is infl uenced by a number of factors (Toušová et al, 2014), e.g. genotype and heritability (Vostrý et al, 2012) as well as individual (Jakubec et al, 2003;Ducháček et al, 2011), the dam age (Roff eis and Muench, 2007), the sex of calves (Stádník et al, 2008), the occurrence of twins (Krupa et al, 2005), the year and period of calving (Dadi et al, 2002), diffi culty of calving (Eriksson et al, 2004), nutrition (Zahrádková et al, 2010), or herd management (Staněk et al, 2014).…”