COMPARISON OF GELBVIEH AND LIMOUSIN SIRES
IN A TERMINAL CROSSBREEDING SYSTEM1,2

E. D. Tinker, R. R. Frahm3 and D. S. Buchanan

Oklahoma State University
Stillwater 74078

ABSTRACT

The Gelbvieh and Limousin breeds were evaluated for use as terminal sires over a 4-yr period (1982 to 1985). A total of 778 calves from 28 bulls (seven per year) of each breed were produced from eight two-breed-cross cow groups. Calves were raised by their dams, without creep feed, on native and bermudagrass pastures until weaned at an average age of 205 d. Although calving difficulty was similar, Gelbvieh-sired calves were 1.0 kg heavier (P < .05) at birth and had 2.1% higher (P < .05) preweining mortality. They also gained 56 g/d faster (P < .01) to weaning and were 12.0 kg heavier (P < .01) at weaning than Limousin-sired calves. Calves born in 1982 and 1984 (409 head) were placed in a feedlot and fed ad libitum a corn-based finishing diet. Animals were selected individually for slaughter when they attained an estimated low Choice quality grade, based on USDA rating standards. Gelbvieh-sired cattle were 13.1 kg heavier (P < .01) when placed on feed, 9.3 kg heavier (P<.10) at slaughter and were in the feedlot 6.5 d less (P < .05) than Limousin-sired cattle. Feedlot daily gain and feed efficiency were similar for cattle from the two sire breeds. Limousin-sired cattle had a .7% advantage (P < .01) in dressing percentage, but had .17 cm more s.c. fat (P < .01). Hot carcass weight, carcass weight/day of age, estimated percentage of kidney, pelvic and heart fat, longissimus area, estimated percentage cutability and quality grade were similar for the two sire breeds, with overall least squares means of 341.8 kg, 756 g, 2.70%, 90.2 cm², 50.64% and 9.53 (10 = low Choice), respectively. Calves sired by the two breeds performed similarly, indicating that the Gelbvieh breed would be as useful as the Limousin breed as a terminal sire.
(Key Words: Beef Cattle, Cross Breeding, Gelbvieh, Limousin.)

Introduction

Crossbreeding has been widely accepted by commercial producers as a method of increasing production efficiency. Approximately 70% of the cattle marketed in the U.S. are crossbred (Koch and Algeo, 1983). Advantages from cross-breeding can be maximized with a well designed breeding program that matches breeds to utilize complementarity in cows and their progeny. Near-maximum performance can be attained by using two-breed-cross dams and selected sire lines (Dickerson, 1969). Results of simulations (Cartwright et al., 1975; Wilton and Morris, 1976; Notter et al., 1979; Clarke et al., 1984) have indicated that production efficiency was greatest when a terminal system was used.

The Limousin breed often has been recommended (Smith, 1976; Frahm and Belcher, 1978; Vissac et al., 1982) and utilized (Adams et al., 1973; Berg et al., 1978; Fredeen et al., 1982a,b; Rahnefeld et al., 1983) as a terminal sire breed due to its adequate growth rate and feed efficiency and superior ability to produce lean carcasses. Limousin-sired calves also have lower birth weight and less calving difficulty than the other Continental breeds (Vissac et al., 1982). Less information is available on the Gelbvieh as a terminal sire breed, although some studies (Gregory et al., 1978; Koch et al., 1979; Cundiff et al., 1981; Gotti, 1982; Gotti et al., 1985) suggest that it may be useful in such a role. The purpose of this study was to compare Gelbvieh and Limousin for use as terminal sire breeds.

Materials and Methods

The Gelbvieh and Limousin bulls used in this study were selected by the American Gelbvieh Association and the North American Limousin Foundation, respectively. Semen from 28 different bulls (seven per year) of each breed was donated by owners of the bulls for use in the 1981 through 1984 breeding seasons. Cows of eight different two-breed combinations (Hereford X Angus, Angus X Hereford, Simmental X Angus, Simmental X Hereford, Brown Swiss X Angus, Brown Swiss X Hereford, Jersey X Angus and Jersey X Hereford) were assigned randomly to bulls, so that each bull was mated to approximately the same number of cows from each crossbred cow group and age. Cows were from 7 to 9 yr of age when calves were born in 1982 and were 10 to 12 yr old in 1985. A more complete description of the cow herd and its development have been presented previously (Belcher and Frahm, 1979). Cows were inseminated artificially each year during a 75-d breeding season starting approximately May 1.

Calves were born primarily in February and March at the North Lake Carl Blackwell Research Range west of Stillwater, Oklahoma and were assigned a calving difficulty score ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = no difficulty, 2 = little difficulty, 3 = moderate difficulty, 4 = major difficulty and 5 = caesarean) by the herdsman. Abnormal presentations were not included in analyses of calving difficulty. All calves were weighed, tagged and dehorned, and bulls were castrated within 24 h of birth. Calves were raised by their dams, without creep feed, on native and bermudagrass pastures until weaning at an average age of 205 d. At weaning, calves were weighed and scored for conformation (primarily muscling) and condition (fatness) by a panel of three members. Two of the panel members were the same for each year of the 4-yr study.

Following weaning, the 1982 and 1984 calf crops were transferred to a feedlot at the Southwestern Livestock and Forage Research Station at El Reno, Oklahoma. Calves were grouped by sire breed, crossbred dam group and sex and were assigned randomly to pens in two barns, one for steers and one for heifers. Calves from the Hereford-Angus reciprocal-cross cows were treated as one crossbred group and penned together. Both barns consisted of 14 concrete-floored pens measuring 11.0 x 14.3 m, with 6.4 m covered by a pole barn open to the south. Self-feeders and automatic waterers were present in each pen. The 1982 calves were placed on test the day following weaning, with actual weaning weight used as on-test weight. The 1984 calves were given a period of 14 d to adapt to the surroundings and diet before shrunk weights were recorded when the test period began. All cattle received implants (Synovex-H4 for heifers and Synovex-S4 for steers) when placed in the feedlot and again midway through the feedlot period. The diet, which consisted of 78% corn, 8% alfalfa, 4% cottonseed hulls, 3% soybean meal and necessary vitamin and mineral supplements, was weighed as it was dispensed into the self-feeders from the feed cart. Excess feed was weighed at the end of the feedlot period.

Cattle were weighed approximately every 30 d, with a shrunk weight recorded when the average age was 365 d. As cattle neared slaughter condition they were weighed and individually selected for slaughter every 2 wk. Cattle were selected when they were estimated to have attained a low Choice quality grade, based on a combination of visual appearance, physical palpation of the ribs and weight gain during the preceding 2 wk. Shrunk weights were obtained before the cattle were transferred to a commercial slaughter facility, where they were slaughtered on either the day of, or the day following, arrival.

Cold carcass weights were recorded and converted to a hot carcass weight basis (divided by .973) on the cattle born in 1982, whereas actual hot carcass weights were obtained on the cattle born in 1984. Carcasses were chilled a minimum of 48 h before evaluation by Oklahoma State University Animal Science personnel specializing in meat science. Carcass maturity, marbling score and estimated percentage of kidney, pelvic and heart fat were recorded at the plant. Tracings of longissimus muscle area and s. c. fat thickness were measured with a compensating polar planimeter and fat depth probe, respectively. Fat thickness was measured at three places (1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 length) along the longissimus muscle edge. Percentage cutability was estimated for each carcass using the USDA cutability equation.

All traits were analyzed with least squares analysis of variance procedures. The model for all traits except feed efficiency included fixed effects of sire breed, year within sire breed, crossbred dam group, age of dam, sex of calf and all two-way interactions. Three-way interactions were not included. Sires nested within year and sire breed was included as a random effect. Sire breed and year within sire breed were tested with the mean square of sires within year and sire breed as the denominator. All other effects were tested with the residual mean square. Linear contrasts were used to test specific interactions when the interaction of sire breed X crossbred cow group was significant. The Hereford-Angus reciprocal cross cows were omitted when comparing Angus-cross vs Hereford-cross cows. Two sets of twins were born in this study. They were not included in analyses of birth or weaning characteristics. Subcutaneous fat thickness was analyzed as the average of three measures and also as a single measure (3/4 length of the longissimus muscle). Age at weaning was included as a covariate in analyses of all weaning traits. Slaughter weight and all carcass traits except marbling score and quality grade were analyzed with marbling score included as a covariate. Sources of variation with a probability level of .2 or greater, including covariates, were omitted from the model, and least squares means were obtained from the reduced model. Feed efficiency was measured on a pen basis. Fixed effects included in the model were sire breed, year within sire breed, dam crossbred group, sex of calf and all two-way interactions.

The residual mean square was used to test all effects. Least squares means were obtained from a reduced model that had sources of variation with a probability level of .2 or greater omitted.

Results and Discussion

A total of 778 calves (361 heifers and 417 steers) were born during the 4-yr period. Sire breed least squares means for birth and weaning traits are presented in Table 1. Gelbvieh-sired calves were 1.0 kg heavier (P < .05) at birth than Limousin-sired calves, but they did not have an increased calving difficulty score. These results were similar to those obtained at the Meat Animal Research Center (MARC), where the Limousin breed was included in Cycle I and the Gelbvieh breed in Cycle II of the Germ Plasm Evaluation Program. Indirect comparisons were estimated with deviations from the Angus-Hereford controls in each cycle. Smith et al. (1976a) and Gregory et al. (1978) reported that both Gelbvieh-sired and Limousin-sired calves were heavier at birth than Hereford-Angus reciprocal cross calves, with Gelbvieh cross calves .8 kg heavier than Limousin cross calves (3.3 vs 2.5 kg heavier than Hereford-Angus reciprocal cross calves, respectively). Limousin sired calves had greater calving difficulty than Hereford-Angus reciprocal cross calves, whereas Gelbvieh-sired calves were similar to the Hereford-Angus reciprocal cross calves at MARC, compared with no difference between the two sire-breeds in our study.

An interaction of sire breed X crossbred cow group (P < .01) was observed for birth weight with least squares means for those subclasses listed in Table 2. Average difference in birth weight among the four groups with a common maternal grandsire breed was generally small. Exceptions were the heavier Gelbvieh-sired calves from Brown Swiss-Hereford cross cows and the lighter Limousin-sired calves from Simmental-Angus cross cows when compared with the other three groups within the respective maternal grandsire breed group. Although there was not a significant difference between sire breeds for calving difficulty score, an interaction (P < .05) between sire breed and age of dam was observed. The interaction apparently resulted from the change in ranking of the two sire breeds for the various cow ages, because there was no apparent pattern, with respect to age, of the rank changes.

Limousin-sired calves had lower preweaning mortality (2.1%, P < .05) and daily gain (56 g/d, P < .01) than Gelbvieh-sired calves (Table 1). Heavier birth weights combined with the faster growth rate for Gelbvieh-sired calves resulted in 12.0 kg heavier (P < .01) weaning weight. Other reports (Fredeen et al., 1982a,b; Newman et al., 1985) have documented lower preweaning mortality and daily gain for Limousin compared with other Continental breeds. Gregory et al. (1978) reported greater daily gain and heavier weaning weight for Gelbvieh sired calves compared with Hereford-Angus reciprocal crosses, and Smith et al. (1976a) reported small differences between Limousin-sired and Hereford-Angus reciprocal cross calves.

Weaning conformation and condition scores were adjusted also to a standard age of 205 d. Limousin-sired calves had a slightly lower (P < .01) condition score (5.3 vs 5.4) but a slight advantage (P < .05) in conformation score (13.5 vs 13.4). The sire breed X crossbred cow group interaction for conformation score was significant (Table 2). Calves from Simmental-cross cows had higher conformation scores (P < .05) than calves from Brown Swiss-cross cows when mated to Limousin bulls, whereas conformation scores of calves from the two crossbred cow groups were similar when sired by Gelbvieh bulls. Limousin-sired calves tended to have slightly higher conformation scores (P < .10) from Angus-cross cows than from Hereford-cross cows; these rankings were reversed when calves were sired by Geibvieh bulls.

Feedlot and carcass traits were evaluated on the 409 cattle (191 heifers and 218 steers) that made up the 1982 and 1984 calf crops (Table 3). Feedlot daily gain was similar for the two sire breeds. Gelbvieh-sired cattle were 13.1 kg heavier (P < .01) when placed in the feedlot and, because of similar daily gains, maintained an advantage (P < .05) at 365 d of age (448.8 vs 434.3 kg). Cattle sired by Gelbvieh bulls also tended to be heavier (P < .10) at slaughter when adjusted to a marbling score of Small. Gelbvieh-sired cattle were slaughtered with 6.5 fewer days in the feedlot (P < .05). A significant sire breed X crossbred cow group interaction was present for days on feed (Table 2). The interaction can be divided further into sire breed X Angus-cross vs sire breed X Hereford-cross cows. Gelbvieh-sired cattle from Angus-cross cows were in the feedlot 11.4 d less than cattle from Hereford-cross cows, but Limousin-sired cattle from Angus-cross cows spent 3.5 d more in the feedlot than cattle from Hereford-cross cows. There was a sire breed X calf sex interaction (P < .05) for days on feed (Table 4). Steers for the two sire breeds spent similar time in the feedlot, but Gelbvieh-sired heifers were on feed 12.8 d less than Limousin-sired heifers. Feed efficiency for the two sire-breeds was similar during the feedlot period.

Smith et al. (1976b) and Cundiff et al. (1981) reported that Gelbvieh-sired steers gained faster than Limousin-sired steers, whereas there was no difference in gain between Gelbvieh-sired and Limousin-sired cattle in our study. Feed efficiency was similar for Gelbvieh-sired and Limousin-sired steers when evaluated on an age constant basis, whereas Gelbvieh-cross steers had an advantage when compared on a weight constant basis (Smith et al., 1976b; Cundiff et al., 1981). Because a low-Choice quality grade was the desired endpoint, marbling score was used as a covariate when evaluating hot carcass weight, dressing percentage and estimated percentage of kidney, pelvic and heart fat and means were adjusted to a Small marbling score. The covariate was not a significant source of variation for other carcass traits and therefore was omitted from the model for those traits. Hot carcass weight and carcass weight per day of age were similar for cattle from the two sire breeds, but Limousin-sired cattle had an advantage (P < .01) in dressing percentage (62.9 vs 62.2%; Table 5). The interaction of sire breed X sex of calf for dressing percentage was significant (Table 4). Rankings of sexes within sire breed were the same; heifers had a higher dressing percentage in both cases, but the difference between sexes was greater for Gelbvieh-sired cattle.

Subcutaneous fat thickness was .17 cm less (P < .01) for Gelbvieh-cross cattle when evaluated as a single measure (3/4 length of longissimus muscle) and .20 cm less (P < .01) when evaluated as an average of the three measures recorded. Estimated percentage of kidney, pelvic and heart fat and longissimus area were similar for the two sire breeds, with a sire breed X crossbred cow group interaction (P < .05) existing for longissimus muscle area (Table 2). Differences were not apparent readily, but the interaction may have been due to the fact that the longisimus muscle area of Gelbvieh-sired cattle was smaller from Brown Swiss-Angus and Jersey-Angus cross cows and larger from Simmental-Angus cross cows compared with Limousin-sired cattle from those same cross-bred cow groups. Carcass cutability, as calculated by the USDA equation, was similar for the sire breeds, but a sire breed X sex of calf interaction was found (Table 4). Rankings within sire breed were the same, but Limousin-cross cattle tended to have a larger difference between steers and heifers. Differences between sire breeds for marbling score and quality grade were not significant.

Koch et al. (1976, 1979) reported comparable carcass characteristics when carcasses from Gelbvieh-cross and Limousin-cross steers were compared with those from Hereford-Angus reciprocal cross steers. Gelbvieh-cross and Limousin-cross carcasses were heavier, had a larger longissimus muscle area and were leaner than Hereford-Angus cross carcasses, but they also had lower marbling scores. The study showed Gelbvieh-sired steers to have more, and Limousin-sired steers less, kidney, pelvic and heart fat than the Hereford-Angus steers, whereas in our study the two sire breeds had a similar amount of internal fat.

Frahm and Belcher (1978) discussed the advantages of the Limousin breed for use as a terminal sire. When compared to the Limousin in this study, the Gelbvieh breed also showed merit as a terminal sire. Calves sired by bulls of both breeds exhibited desirable growth rate and feed efficiency and produced lean, muscular carcasses. The greater preweaning growth rate of the Gelbvieh-sired calves was offset partially by a higher preweaning death loss. This study demonstrates that both the Gelbvieh and Limousin breeds should be useful in a terminal crossing system. When selecting terminal sires from these two breeds, emphasis should be based on the individual bulls available and the price for which they can be obtained.

1 Journal Article 5259 ofthe Agric. Exp. Sta., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater. Research was conducted by the Anim. Sci. Dept. (OAES Project 1502) in cooperation with USDA, SEA, Southern Region and contributes to the Regional Beef Cattle Breeding Project, NC-1.
2 The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance of H. G. Dolezal and S. G. May in collecting the carcass data.
3 Present address: Dept. of Anim. Sci., Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg 24061. Received September 1, 1987.
Accepted January 18, 1988.
4 Syntex Agribusiness Inc., Des Moines, IA.



Literature Cited

Adams, N. J., W. N. Garrett and J. T. Elings. 1973. Performance and carcass characteristics of crosses from imported breeds. J. Anim. Sci. 37:623.

Belcher, C. G. and R. R. Frahm. 1979. Productivity of two-year-old crossbred cows producing three-breed cross calves. J. Anim. Sci. 49:1195.

Berg, R. T., B. B. Andersen and T. Liboriussen. 1978. Growth of bovine tissues 1. Genetic influences on growth patterns of muscle, fat and bone in young, bulls. Anim. Prod. 26:245.

Cartwright, T. C., H. A. Fitzhugh, Jr. and C. R. Long. 1975. Systems analysis of sources of genetic and environmental variation in efficiency of beef production: mating plans. J. Anim. Sci. 40:433.

Clarke, S. E., C. T. Gaskins, J. K. Hillers and W. D. Hohenboken. 1984. Mathematical modeling of alternative culling and crossbreeding strategies in beef production. J. Anim. Sci. 58:6.

Cundiff, L. V., R. M. Koch, K. E. Gregory and G. M. Smith. 1981. Characterization of biological types of cattle-Cycle II. IV. Postweaning growth and feed efficiency of steers. J. Anim. Sci. 53:332.

Dickerson, G. E. 1969. Experimental approaches in utilizing breed resources. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 37:191.

Frahm, R. R. and D. R. Belcher. 1978. An evaluation of Limousin cattle. Oklahoma State Univ. Bull. B-736.

Fredeen, H. T., G. M. Weiss, J. E. Lawson, J. A. Newman and G. W. Rahnefeld. 1982a. Environmental and genetic effects on preweaning performance of calves from first-cross cows. 1. Calving ease and preweaning mortality. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 62:35.

Fredeen, H. T., G. M. Weiss, G. W. Rahnefeld, J. E. Lawson and J. A. Newman. 1982b. Environmental and genetic effects on preweaning performance of calves from first-cross cows. II. Growth traits. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 62:51.

Gotti, J. E. 1982. Evaluation of performance characteristics in a partial diallel involving Angus, Santa Gertrudis and Gelbvieh breeds of beef cattle. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of Georgia, Athens.

Gotti, J. E., L. L. Benyshek and T. E. Kiser. 1985. Reproductive performance in crosses of Angus, Santa Gertrudis and Gelbvieh beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 61:1017.

Gregory, K. E., L. V. Cundiff, G. M. Smith, D. B. Laster and H. A. Fitzhugh, Jr. 1978. Characterization of biological types of cattle-Cycle II. I. Birth and weaning traits. J. Anim. Sci. 47:1022.

Koch, R. M., M. E. Dikeman, D. M. Allen, M. May, J. D. Crouse and D. R. Campion. 1976. Characterization of biological types of cattle. III. Carcass composition, quality and palatability. J. Anim. Sci. 43:48.

Koch, R. M., M. E. Dikeman, R. J. Lipsey, D. M. Allen and J. D. Crouse. 1979. Characterization of biological types of cattle-Cycle II:III. Carcass composition, quality and palatability. J. Anim. Sci. 49:448.

Koch, R. M. and J. W. Algeo. 1983. The beef cattle industry: changes and challenges. J. Anim. Sci. 57 (Suppl.2):28.

Newman, J. A., G. W. Rahnefeld, A.K.W. Tong and H. T. Fredeen. 1985. Calving and preweaning performance of crossbred progeny of some foreign and domestic beef cattle breeds. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 65:583.

Notter, D. R., J. O. Sanders, G. E. Dickerson, G. M. Smith and T. C. Cartwright. 1979. Simulated efficiency of beef production for a Midwestern cow-calf-feedlot management system. III. Crossbreeding systems. J. Anim. Sci. 49:92.

Rahnefeld, G. W., H. T. Fredeen, G. M. Weiss, J. E. Lawson and J. A. Newman. 1983. Breed of terminal sire effects on carcass characteristics of three-way cross beef cattle reared at two locations. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 63:523.

Smith, G. M. 1976. Sire breed effects on economic efficiency of a terminal-cross beef production system. J. Anim. Sci. 43:1163.

Smith, G. M., D. B. Laster and K. E. Gregory. 1976a. Characterization of biological types of cattle I. Dystocia and preweaning growth. J. Anim. Sci. 43:27.

Smith, G. M., D. B. Laster, L. V. Cundiff and K. E. Gregory. 1976b. Characterization of biological types of cattle II. Postweaning growth and feed efficiency of steers. J. Anim. Sci. 43:37.

Vissac, B., J. L. Foulley and F. Menissier. 1982. Using breed resources of continental beef cattle: The French situation. In: R. A. Barton and W. C. Smith (Ed.) Proceedings of the World Congress of Sheep and Beef Cattle breeding. pp 101 -113.

Wilton, J. W. and C. A. Morris. 1976. Effects of reproductive performance and mating system on farm gross margins in beef production. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 56:171.





TABLE 1. LEAST SQUARES MEANS AND STANDARD ERRORS FOR BIRTH AND WEANING TRAITS
Sire breed
 Difference
Trait Gelbvieh (G) Limousin (L) (G-L)
Birth wt, kg 39.4 ± .4 38.4 ± .4 1.0*
Dystocia scorea 1.13 ± .03 1.11 ± .03 .02
Preweaning mortality, % 3.3 ± .8 1.2 ± .8 2.1 *
Preweaning avg daily gain, g/d 1035 ± 7 979 ± 7 56**
Weaning wt, kg 251.6 ± 1.5 239.6 ± 1.5 12.0 *
Weaning conformationb 13.4 ± .04 13.5 ± .04 -.1 *
Weaning conditionc 5.4 ± .03 5.3 ± .03 .1**
a Calving difficulty: 1 = no difficulty and 2 = little difficulty.
b Conformation score: 13 = average choice and 14 = high choice.
c Condition score: 9-point scale with 1 = very thin, 5 = average and 9 = very fat.
*P < .05.
**P<.01.



TABLE 2. LEAST SQUARES MEANS AND STANDARD ERRORS BY SUBCLASS FOR TRAITS WITH A SIGNIFICANT SIRE BREED X CROSSBRED COW GROUP INTERACTION
Trait
Crossbred cow group No. of
calves		 Birth
wt, kg**		 Weaning
conformationb*		 Days on
feed*		 Longissimus
area, CM²
-Gelbvieh sire-

Hereford X Angus 46 (28)a 40.3 ± .5 13.2 ± .06 237.3 ± 2.5 89.3 ± 1.9
Angus X Hereford 37 (20) 38.0 ± .6 13.4 ± .06 233.8 ± 3.0 91.2 ± 2.2
Simmental X Angus 51 (24) 41.1 ± .5 13.9 ± .06 243.5 ± 2.8 97.6 ± 2.1
Simmental X Hereford 42 (24) 40.9 ± .6 13.8 ± .06 244.1 ± 2.8 94.6 ± 2.1
Brown Swiss X Angus 42 (22) 39.9 ± .6 13.8 ± .06 221.3 ± 2.8 87.1 ± 2.1
Brown Swiss X Hereford 42 (23) 43.9 ± .6 13.9 ± .06 242.6 ± 2.8 94.0 ± 2.1
Jersey X Angus 52 (25) 34.9 ± .5 12.5 ± .05 210.2 ± 2.7 79.8 ± 2.0
Jersey X Hereford 55 (26) 36.1 ± .5 12.8 ± .05 222.6 ± 2.7 86.3 ± 2.0

-Limousin sire-

Hereford X Angus 54 (26) 37.9 ± .5 13.4 ± .05 244.2 ± 2.8 89.5 ± 2.0
Angus X Hereford 51 (28) 38.2 ± .5 13.5 ± .06 227.7 ± 2.6 88.7 ± 1.9
Simmental X Angus 58 (29) 39.0 ± .5 14.0 ± .05 250.4 ± 2.6 92.5 ± 1.9
Simmental X Hereford 44 (24) 41.5 ± .6 14.0 ± .06 256.1 ± 2.9 96.6 ± 2.1
Brown Swiss X Angus 50 (28) 40.7 ± .5 13.9 ± .06 247.9 ± 2.7 91.6 ± 1.9
Brown Swiss X Hereford 35 (22) 39.9 ± .6 13.7 ± .07 238.6 ± 3.0 92.7 ± 2.1
Jersey X Angus 64 (34) 34.5 ± .5 12.9 ± .05 224.6 ± 2.5 84.2 ± 1.8
Jersey X Hereford 55 (26) 35.4 ± .5 12.7 ± .05 217.8 ± 2.8 86.9 ± 2.0
a Number in parenthesis is number of calves evaluated for feedlot and carcass traits.
b Conformation score: 13 = average Choice and 14 = high Choice.
*P <.05
**P <.01



TABLE 3. LEAST SQUARES MEANS AND STANDARD ERRORS FOR FEEDLOT TRAITS
Sire breed
 Difference
Trait Gelbvieh (G) Limousin (L) (G-L)
Initial feedlot wt, kg 248.8 ± 2.4 235.7 ± 2.3 13.1 **
Yearling wt, kg 448.8 ± 4.9 434.3 ± 4.9 14.5 *
Days on feed 231.9 ± 2.7 238.4 ± 2.7 -6.5 *
Feedlot daily gain, g/d 1,311 ± 76 1,290 ± 74 21
Feed efficiency, kg feed/kg gain 6.98 ± .07 7.01 ± .07 -.03
Slaughter wt, kg 551.3 ± 4.9 542.0 ± 4.9 9.3 +
+ P <.10.
*P <.05.
**P <.01.



TABLE 4. LEAST SQUARES MEANS AND STANDARD ERRORS BY SUBCLASS FOR TRAITS WITH A SIGNIFICANT SIRE BREED X SEX OF CALF INTERACTION
Trait
Sex of calf Days on
feed*		 Dressing
percentage*		 Cutability, %+
Gelbvieh sire
Heifer
 220.3 ± 2.9 62.9 ± .2 51.02 ± .20
Steer
 243.6 ± 2.7 61.4 ± .1 50.54 ± .19
Limousin sire
Heifer
 233.1 ± 2.9 63.2 ± .2 51.03 ± .20
Steer
 243.7 ± 2.6 62.7 ± .1 49.99 ± .18
+ P <.10.
*P <.05.



TABLE 5. LEAST SQUARES MEANS AND STANDARD ERRORS FOR CARCASS TRAITS
Sire breed
 Difference
Trait Gelbvieh (G) Limousin (L) (G-L)
Carcass wt, kg 342.5 ± 3.2 341.2 ± 3.2 1.3
Carcass wt/d of age, g 763 ± 8 750 ± 8 13
Dressing percentage 62.2 ± .1 62.9 ± .1 -.7**
Single fat thickness, cm 1.14 ± .05 1.31 ± .04 -.17**
Avg fat thickness, cm 1.58 ± .06 1.78 ± .06 -.20**
Kidney, heart and pelvic fat, % 2.72 ± 04 2.68 ± .04 .04
Longissimus area, cm² 90.0 ± 1.1 90.4 ± 1.0 -.4
Cutability, % 50.78 ± .19 50.51 ± .19 .27
Marbling scorea 4.78 ± .10 4.76 ± .10 .02
Quality gradeb 9.55 ± .19 9.52 ± .19 .03
a Marbling score: 4 = slight and 5 = small.
b Carcass grade: 9 = high Good and 10 = low Choice.
**P < .01.

Return to Breed Research Page

Copyright © 1996. Oklahoma State University Board of Regents. All rights reserved.