2002
DOI: 10.2527/2002.8071716x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluations of genotype×environment interactions of beef bulls performance-tested in feedlot or pasture

Abstract: Purebred Angus (n = 96) and Polled Hereford (n = 96) bull calves sired by bulls of either low or high yearling weight performance lines were assigned to either creep-fed or non-creep-fed treatment before weaning for four calf crops. For each breed, after weaning in the fall, half of the calves within each of the four groups were fed a high concentrate diet for 189 d after weaning in a feedlot and the remainder were put on winter temporary pastures (rye or ryegrass) followed by summer grazing on pearl millet an… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
1
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
4
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…With additive genetic component of ADG C explaining only approximately 20% of the genetic variation in ADG D , along with the low heritability estimates for ADG D , decoupled recording of feed intake from the measurement of average daily gain becomes problematic for indexes of efficiency. Contrary to the present results, Baker et al (2002) indicated central test station data was useful for ranking bulls on genetic merit for growth in both feedlot and on pasture. Similarly, Johnston et al (2003) found no evidence of genotype by production environment interactions that affected performance.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…With additive genetic component of ADG C explaining only approximately 20% of the genetic variation in ADG D , along with the low heritability estimates for ADG D , decoupled recording of feed intake from the measurement of average daily gain becomes problematic for indexes of efficiency. Contrary to the present results, Baker et al (2002) indicated central test station data was useful for ranking bulls on genetic merit for growth in both feedlot and on pasture. Similarly, Johnston et al (2003) found no evidence of genotype by production environment interactions that affected performance.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…Scrotal size, which is expected to be associated with female fertility (Vargas et al 1998), indicated very negligible effects of G · E. The additive genetic correlation of 0.97 for SS between Victoria and Queensland indicated that bulls would be ranked similarly in the two states. Baker et al (2002) also reported non-significant G · E interaction for SS of Angus bulls raised on feedlot or in pasture.…”
Section: Reproductive Traitsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…al.,( (23) reveled that via, implantation period organic matter especially starch consumed by plant to support the metabolism and energy requirements of growing Baker. et.al.,( (24) , Mayer, (26), were explain in studies that after 6 days of sprouting , starch accounted for 53-67% of the dry weight of barley seed, so any decrease in the amount of starch would cause a corresponding decrease in OM, DM NFC in forage , and report summarized by. Sneath .…”
Section: Nutrients Contents In Green Fodder Obtained Per Kg Of Barleymentioning
confidence: 97%