4.2 Article

The effect of transporting, scoring and roping on cortisol concentrations in acclimated roping calves

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL RESEARCH
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 8-13

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09712119.2012.738218

关键词

cortisol; rodeo; stress; roping calves

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the effect of transportation, scoring and roping activities on cortisol concentration in acclimated calves. A total of 16 cross-bred Longhorn calves between 4 and 6 months old and ranging in weight between 104 and 136 kg were used. These calves were preconditioned to roping for 6 weeks prior to study and were randomly allotted to treatments based on a Latin Square experimental design with treatments as follows; remaining at farm (farm), transport to arena (transport), twice passing through roping chute but not being roped (score) and twice being roped and tied (rope). Blood samples were collected via jugular vena puncture, received respective treatment and then second blood samples were collected. This experiment was replicated twice (n = 8 calves, per year), and calves were roped twice per day for 3 days per week during the study. The data was analysed by replicate and by pooled data. The mean +/- SE pre-event and change in serum cortisol concentrations (mu g/dL) were: farm (n = 16), 4.5 +/- 0.9, 0.9 +/- 0.6; transport (n = 16), 5.1 +/- 0.6, 0.9 +/- 0.8; score (n = 16), 5.0 +/- 0.5, 1.6 +/- 0.4; rope (n = 15) 4.9 +/- 0.6, 0.5 +/- 0.6. The cortisol concentration was elevated for pre-event samples during week 2 compared with week 4 and this suggests possibly a change in routine may have affected cortisol. However, treatment did not affect (P<0.05) change in cortisol concentration among calves; farm (0.9 +/- 0.6), transport (0.5 +/- 0.6), score (1.7 +/- 0.4), farm (0.9 +/- 0.8). Also, calves weight gain was not different (P>0.05) between groups and averaged 0.32 kg/day, for year 2. These data indicate roping does not increase cortisol concentrations in acclimated calves.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据