4.0 Article

Intake, physiological parameters and behavior of Angus and Nellore bulls subjected to heat stress

期刊

SEMINA-CIENCIAS AGRARIAS
卷 36, 期 6, 页码 4565-4574

出版社

UNIV ESTADUAL LONDRINA
DOI: 10.5433/1679-0359.2015v36n6Supl2p4565

关键词

Beef cattle; intake regulation; temperature

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetics differences between breeds may determine the tolerance to high temperature, effect dry matter intake and consequently cattle performance. The effect of temperature and humidity index (THI) on diurnal, nocturnal and daily intake, water intake, physiologic parameters and behavior of Nellore (B. indicus) and Angus (B. taurus) bulls were evaluated. Eight Angus and eight Nellore young bulls (337 +/- 7.4 kg and 16 months of age) were allocated in two climate-controlled rooms for 32 days. In the period 1, all bulls were housed in thermoneutral conditions (TN, THI = 72.6) for 10 days. In period 2 (10 days), four Angus and four Nellore bulls were subjected to low heat stress (LHS, THI = 76.4) in daytime, and four Angus and four Nellore bulls were subjected to high heat stress (HHS, THI = 81.5) in daytime. The diurnal and daily dry matter intake (DMI) of Nellore were not affected (P>0.05) by heat stress. However, Angus bulls decreased diurnal DMI by 24% and daily DMI decreased (P<0.05) by 15% on HHS. In TN Angus bulls had higher (P<0.05) daily DMI (36.2 g/kg of BW) than Nellore (29.1 g/kg of BW), but in HHS they had similar (P>0.05) daily DMI (31.6 and 30.2 g/kg of BW, respectively). We observed an increase (P<0.05) in respiratory frequency, but water intake was not affected (P>0.05) by heat stress. The heart rate decreased (P<0.05) with heat stress. No differences were found (P>0.05) in feeding behavior. Therefore, THI stress threshold should distinct for Angus and Nellore bulls. The use of feed intake information may improve the prediction of thermic discomfort on specific climate condition.

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

4.0
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