Post on 01-Jan-2016
I. A. García-Galicia*; A. Corral-Luna; F. A. Rodríguez-Almeida; M. A. Chávez Anchondo; J. A. Bustillos-García; Y. Martínez-Cordova; F. A. Núñez-González.
CROSSING BEEF CATTLE WITH CHIHUAHUAN CRIOLLO CATTLE IS AN EFFICIENT ALTERNATIVE FOR
BEEF PRODUCTION ON ARID ENVIRONMENTS OF NORTHERN
MEXICO
International Conference on Livestock Nutrition. Frankfurt, Germany. August 11/12, 2015
WH
ER
E IS
CH
IHU
AH
UA
?Annual precipitation
TH
E P
RO
BL
EM
In dry environments, climate change aggravate conditions Grasslands capacity is reduced Higher costs of supplementation
Inadequate or absent grazing cattle methods Deteriorated Chihuahuan grasslands with proliferation of invasive species
TH
E C
HA
LL
EN
GE
Finding ecological and economical alternatives of production is compulsory for local producers
Reducing overgrazing Low cost beef production Acceptable for consumers
INT
RO
DU
CT
ION
Rustic breeds advantages Adaptation to local conditions, tolerance to
low nutrient contents, diversified use of pasture (Isselstein et al., 2007)
Comparable meat quality (Vatansever et al., 2000; Liotta et al., 2011)
Healthy fatty acids profile and antioxidants (Vatansever et al., 2000; Orellana et al. 2009)
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
Grazing Criollo cattle- takes advantages of grasslands on an ecological way and produces healthy beef (Frederickson, 2005; Roacho et al., 2007; Anderson et al., 2015)
So, why not to use it pure?• Prejudges• Market (rodeo)
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
Angus and Criollo crosses Phenotypic characteristics similar to Angus Rusticity and adaptability characteristics (anecdotal)?
OB
JEC
TIV
ES
To validate Criollo cattle on strategic crosses with Angus as an alternative for sustainable beef production.
To evaluate the use of grasslands and the grazing behaviour of Criollo, Angus and their crosses (females)
To evaluate productive parameters and feed efficiency of steers under extensive conditions and short indoors fattening (males)
To evaluate quality of meat, fatty acid and antioxidant profile of steers under extensive conditions and short indoors fattening
MA
TE
RIA
LS
AN
D
ME
TH
OD
S (G
RA
ZIN
G
BE
HA
VIO
UR
)Animals
18 heifers (Six Criollo, six Angus x Criollo and six Angus) born and grown at the experimental site (adapted). Experimental farmarm from the University
Twelve months oldGrazing site
Highly diversified plant population Grassland dominated by Boutelouva hirsuta, B. radicosa and B.
gracilis Ad libitum water availability
MA
TE
RIA
LS
AN
D
ME
TH
OD
S (G
RA
ZIN
G
BE
HA
VIO
UR
)Monitoring of animals
Six days of constant monitoring in summer-fall and winter Every day two different heifers/breed were monitored Students with GPS (Garmin)
◦ Localization ◦ Activity (Standing (no activity), Laying (resting rumia), Walking exclusively o
Grazing)
7.6 10.3 6.5
35.5 29.3 32.6
34.7 39.2 40.4
22.3 21.2 20.4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ANGUS CRIOLLO AxC
Walking Laying Grazing Standing
6.20% 6.66% 7.80%
35.75%29.04% 26.51%
49.13%54.59% 57.15%
8.92% 9.70% 8.54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ANGUS CRIOLLO AxC
Standing Grazing Laying Walking
Summer -Autumm Winter
Criollo and A x C graze > 1 hour moreA x C and Criollo rest less than Angus on winter
*
*
*
*
GR
AZ
ING
AR
EA
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E A
ND
ME
AT
Q
UA
LIT
YTwenty-four steers (8 Criollo, 8 Angus x Criollo and 8 Hereford x Angus)
Performance monitored for one year after weaning. Weighting animals every 2 weeks.
Under regular management at the farm After one year on grazing system, animals went indoors Productive performance and feed efficiency measured for three
months after one of adaptation Slaughter for evaluating; shelf life (colour), carcass characteristics,
meat quality and tenderness
PR
OD
UC
TIV
E
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
Angus x Criollo Hereford x Angus Criollo
RE
SU
LTS
Weights on grazing system
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
Kg
BW
Angus x CriolloHereford x AngusCriollo
Grazing on irrigated cultivation. Grainsupplementation.
Pen with corn stubble.
Rain season. Grazing on natural lands.
Dry season. Low grass availability.
250
270
290
310
330
350
370
390
410
430
Entry Dec Jan Jan Feb Feb Mar
Kg
Bo
dy W
eig
ht
Hereford x Angus Criollo Angus x Criollo
ConC
Conditioning Trial
LIV
E W
EIG
HT
Indoors finishing 21 steers remaining (7 Hereford x Angus, 7 A x C y 7 Criollos)Why indoors?
**
RF
I
Hereford x Angus
Criollo
Angus x Criollo
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.746
-0.632
-0.389
1.075
0.252
0.744
Residual Food Intake
Grs Dry Matter
Average: 0.036 in AxC -0.132 in Criollo 0.094 in HxA
Criollo had a trend to be more efficient
AxC seems to have slightly better trend than HxA
CA
RC
AS
S E
VA
LU
AT
ION
Carcass weights and yields Final weight: *Criollo=355kg, AxC= 392kg
and HxA=412kg
50,0
52,0
54,0
56,0
58,0
60,0
62,0
Hot carcass yield
%
Criollo Angus x Criollo Hereford x Angus
100,0
120,0
140,0
160,0
180,0
200,0
220,0
240,0
260,0
280,0
Carcass weight (kg)
CA
RC
AS
S T
RA
ITS
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
12,0
DF mm % KF Rib eye area (in2) Marbling
Carcass characteristics
Criollo Angus x Criollo Hereford x Angus
**
TE
ND
ER
NE
SS
Genetic group0
5
10
15
20
25
13.68
17.95
23.88
Thoughness on rib eye steaks
Angus x CriolloHereford x AngusCriollo
Kg
f
*
*
*
CO
LO
UR
LO
ST
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ch
rom
a (
C*)
Days on retail display within modified atmosphere
Angus x Criollo
Criollo
Hereford x Angus
CO
NC
LU
SIO
NS
AN
D
IMP
LIC
AT
ION
SCriollo had some carcass traits comparable to European cattle and seemed to be more “efficient” on daily gain
Angus x Criollo cattle showed remarkable good meat quality such as marbling , and better tenderness and colour conservation than H x A
Remarkably, Angus x Criollo cattle kept beneficial characteristics from both Criollo and Angus, and seems a good alternative for beef production on deserted areas
Is adaptation the key?
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
Thank you