Abstract:
12A INCREASING MEAT PRODUCTION AND RETURNS FROM CULL COWS 20 POOR CONDITIONED PREGNANT COWS M. JEFFERY*, T. JAMES*, I. LOXTON** and T. RYAN*** Up to 60% of cull cows are pregnant at slaughter in northern Australian abattoirs. Many are in poor body condition (subcutaneous rump fat depth l-3mm) and with carcase weights less than 16Okg &adds et al 1975) financial returns are low. An alternative may be to transfer these pregnant cows to finishing pastures (eg Central Queensland), then selling both cows and calves post calving. This experiment examin& cows transferred to Central Queensland and grazed on buffel grass pastures with the following treatments: I- Initial slaughter group of pregnant cows in July. 3M- Slaughter both cows and suckling calves 3 months post calving in February. 6M- Slaughter both cows and suckling 6 months post calving in May. EW- Calves early weaned in February onto pasture and fed a grain ration (75 % grain, 25 % concentrates) until May, with cows grazing similar pastures. CF- Calves creep fed a grain ration (75% grain, 25 % cont.) with access to the cow (Feb. to May). G- Both cows and suckling calf fed an Ad lib grain ration (86 % gram, 14% conc.)from Feb. to May. Ration intakes for the EW and CF calves and G cows and calves were 4.5, 0.8 and 10.3 kg/unit/day respectively. The EW and G treatments resulted in heavier cow carcases with greater subcutaneous fat cover than other treatments (Table 1). There was little difference in the growth rates and carcase attributes of the treated calves, with the EW calves growing slowest (0.77kg/hd/day) and the CF fastest (0.89kg/hd/day). The greatest increase in value of the cow/calf unit of each treatment over I is due to the sale value of the calf. Treatments which produced a calf (3M and 6M), even without greatly improving the carcase weight and value of the cow, improved returns and recorded the most attractive benefit:cost ratios. Improving cow carcase weights and obtaining the calf (treatments EW and G) further improved the value of the cow/calf unit. While all treatments were positive, the extra input costs of the EW, G and CF treatments are reflected in lower benefit:cost ratios. The financial support of the Meat Research Corporation and the assistance of Queensland Department of Primary Industries staff is gratefully acknowledged. Ladds, P. W., Summers, P.M. and Humphrey, J.D. (1975). Aust. Vet. .I. 51:472. * ** *** Queensland Department of Primary industries, Brigalow Research Station, M .S. 586, Theodore Queensland Department of Primary Industties, PO Box 6014, Rockhampton Q 4700. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, PO Box 81, Emerald Q 4720. Q 4719.