Literature DB >> 19960206

Water spray cooling during handling of feedlot cattle.

Tami M Brown-Brandl1, Roger A Eigenberg, John A Nienaber.   

Abstract

Activities involved in receiving or working (e.g., sorting, dehorning, castration, weighing, implanting, etc.) of feedlot cattle cause an increase in body temperature. During hot weather the increased body temperature may disrupt normal behaviors including eating, which can be especially detrimental to the well-being and performance of the animals. Sprinkle cooling of animals has been successfully employed within the pen; however, added moisture to the pens' surface increases odor generation from the pen. A study was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of a single instance of wetting an animal within the working facility instead of in the pen, which could potentially provide extra evaporative cooling to offset the added heat produced by activity. Sixty-four cross-bred heifers were assigned to one of eight pens on the basis of weight. On four separate occasions during hot conditions (average temperature 28.2 ± 1.9°C, 29.1 ± 2.0°C, 28.9 ± 3.0°C, and 26.8 ± 1.6°C; with the temperature ranging from 22.6 to 32.5°C during the trials), the heifers were moved from their pens to and from the working facility (a building with a scale and squeeze chute located 160-200 m away). While in the squeeze chute, four of the pens of heifers were sprinkle cooled and the remaining four pens were worked as normal. The heifers that were treated had a body temperature that peaked sooner (31.9 ± 0.63 min compared to 37.6 ± 0.62) with a lower peak body temperature (39.55 ± 0.03°C compared to 39.74 ± 0.03°C), and recovered sooner (70.5 ± 2.4 min compared to 83.2 ± 2.4 min). The treated animals also had a lower panting score, a visual assessment of level of cattle heat stress (1.1 ± 0.2 compared to 1.16 ± 0.2). The behavior measurements that were taken did not indicate a change in behavior. It was concluded that while a single instance of wetting an animal within the working facility did not completely offset the increase in body temperature, it was beneficial to the animals without needing to add water to the pen surface, thus reducing the potential for odor generation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19960206     DOI: 10.1007/s00484-009-0282-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Biometeorol        ISSN: 0020-7128            Impact factor:   3.787


  6 in total

1.  Changes in exercise and post-exercise core temperature under different clothing conditions.

Authors:  G P Kenny; F D Reardon; J S Thoden; G G Giesbrecht
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 3.787

2.  Behavioral sampling techniques for feedlot cattle.

Authors:  F M Mitlöhner; J L Morrow-Tesch; S C Wilson; J W Dailey; J J McGlone
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.159

Review 3.  Dynamic responses of cattle to thermal heat loads.

Authors:  G L Hahn
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  Feedlot cattle with calm temperaments have higher average daily gains than cattle with excitable temperaments.

Authors:  B D Voisinet; T Grandin; J D Tatum; S F O'Connor; J J Struthers
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 3.159

5.  Feeding strategies for managing heat load in feedlot cattle.

Authors:  T L Mader; S M Holt; G L Hahn; M S Davis; D E Spiers
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.159

6.  Major determinants of fasting heat production and energetic cost of activity in growing pigs of different body weight and breed/castration combination.

Authors:  J van Milgen; J F Bernier; Y Lecozler; S Dubois; J Noblet
Journal:  Br J Nutr       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.718

  6 in total
  3 in total

1.  Assessment of thermal load on transported goats administered with ascorbic acid during the hot-dry conditions.

Authors:  N S Minka; J O Ayo
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2011-05-05       Impact factor: 3.787

2.  Impact of short-term heat stress on physiological responses and expression profile of HSPs in Barbari goats.

Authors:  Satyaveer Singh Dangi; Mahesh Gupta; Vimla Nagar; Vijay Pratap Yadav; Saroj K Dangi; Om Shankar; Vikrant Singh Chouhan; Puneet Kumar; Gyanendra Singh; Mihir Sarkar
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2014-03-09       Impact factor: 3.787

3.  Airborne Microorganisms From Livestock Production Systems and Their Relation to Dust.

Authors:  Yang Zhao; AndrÉ J A Aarnink; Mart C M De Jong; Peter W G Groot Koerkamp
Journal:  Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 12.561

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.